It’s not the draft execution so much as it’s the draft strategy

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I forgot about Tenuta. So that’s one each in rounds 3, 5, 6 & 7. Plus Saffold. Whoop. Meanwhile the DL gets Von Miller, several other FAs and one pick each in rounds 1 & 2. Let’s discuss the difference there. Hit rates plummet as the draft goes on. Round one breakdown is about: 1/3 of players are good enough to stay with their team after their rookie deal, 1/3 are good enough to play out their rookie deal and then play elsewhere and 1/3 bust. Round two is about 25% same team, 35% different team, 40% bust. It slides down from there. By the time you get to day 3 you’re buying lottery tickets. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t have taken some shots, but it’s not the same thing as using premium picks. 

So you want them to draft for need, but just for offense?

 

They should take their 12th OG on the board in round two instead of their #2 DT?

[BarleyNY]

6 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

Buffalo's draft picks typically are reflective of the HC.  As in, all too often OBD takes the safe approach that limits risk, but means the reward is typically smaller. 

 

The one time they abandoned that principle was taking Josh, who was physically the most gifted talent in that draft.  Rousseau and Spencer Brown fit that concept, but then they went back to safe in 2022 taking Cook and Bernard along with another RD1 CB.  They're just not bold very often and that's the price teams need to pay to remain competitive.   

 

These 6 off-seasons have been a slow grind of improving, over-paying or paying market value for talent, and struggling to keep up with the league's elite.  In that regard, their strategy is safe and frequently decisions to support that are not executed well.    

I look at it similarly, but I think that recently it is more that they’re filling needs and looking for cost control.  That often comes at the expense of taking the best prospects available (at a position that isn’t a big need) or taking chances on players with bigger upsides.That gets you Basham over Humphrey because you have Morse. 

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I look at it similarly, but I think that recently it is more that they’re filling needs and looking for cost control.  That often comes at the expense of taking the best prospects available (at a position that isn’t a big need) or taking chances on players with bigger upsides.That gets you Basham over Humphrey because you have Morse. 

How is drafting Boogie Basham a "need pick" when you drafted two DE's in the first and second round right before him?  But reaching for a center when you need a backup not a "need pick?"

[LABILLBACKER]

11 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I forgot about Tenuta. So that’s one each in rounds 3, 5, 6 & 7. Plus Saffold. Whoop. Meanwhile the DL gets Von Miller, several other FAs and one pick each in rounds 1 & 2. Let’s discuss the difference there. Hit rates plummet as the draft goes on. Round one breakdown is about: 1/3 of players are good enough to stay with their team after their rookie deal, 1/3 are good enough to play out their rookie deal and then play elsewhere and 1/3 bust. Round two is about 25% same team, 35% different team, 40% bust. It slides down from there. By the time you get to day 3 you’re buying lottery tickets. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t have taken some shots, but it’s not the same thing as using premium picks. 

Drafting 5th-7th round olineman just proves how little McDermott values protecting his best player. It's a slap in the face to JA.  In 6 years, McDermott has acquired just 1 olineman in the first 2 rounds. And that was "Found On Road Dead".

[FireChans]

Just now, LABILLBACKER said:

Drafting 5th-7th round olineman just proves how little McDermott values protecting his best player. It's a slap in the face to JA.  In 6 years, McDermott has acquired just 1 olineman in the first 2 rounds. And that was "Found On Road Dead".

Dion Dawkins?

[OldTimer1960]

6 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

That gets bumped out of the playoffs for the last three seasons, the team has a lot going for it to say the least, but there are short comings on both sides of the ball, and the buck stops on the GMs HCs & coordinators desks, it is they who are not adapting or the players are not doing what they want done, either way, it’s on them to make appropriate changes in play design or personnel to achieve the goal. 
 

GO BILLS!!!

only 1 team out of 32 does not get bounced out of playoffs or earlier.  Of course, we all want them to win a championship, but realize it is VERY hard to do.  

[starrymessenger]

We will all be interested observers when # 27 is on the clock. It may show whether a new commitment to the O is in the cards. We need WR and O-line help and, probably, also with the running back position if DS walks, which I expect he will. Of course if Poyer and Tremaine also sign with other teams we will have important holes to fill at safety and LB. The safety position is especially concerning since it has been a strength of the D but Hyde is getting up there in years and who knows if Hamlin will ever be able to play again. Maybe Benford can transition maybe not. I think I would try hard to finalize a team friendly contract with Poyer if at all possible.
I would not be completely surprised if when we pick both Addison (WR) and Johnson (S) are on the board. Either one would be an outstanding pick at a position of need. My feeling is that McD would want the safety and that defensive players are perhaps graded more highly than equivalent players on offence talent-wise on the Bill's board. If instead a receiver is taken in the first (or a IOL or OT) it may indicate the change in emphasis going forward that some fans are hoping to see.

Of course FA and possibly trades might answer a lot of questions even before we get to the draft.

[BarleyNY]

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

So you want them to draft for need, but just for offense?

 

They should take their 12th OG on the board in round two instead of their #2 DT?

That’s not even a good straw man. Please try to do better than that. 
 

I don’t want them to put themselves in a position where they have to draft for need. And I want them to stop pouring most of their resources into the defense. I thought that was clear. 

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

How is drafting Boogie Basham a "need pick" when you drafted two DE's in the first and second round right before him?  But reaching for a center when you need a backup not a "need pick?"

Because being 2 deep in the DL has been more important to this team than building the first string OL or drafting the BPA. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by BarleyNY

[FireChans]

22 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

That’s not even a good straw man. Please try to do better than that. 
 

I don’t want them to put themselves in a position where they have to draft for need. And I want them to stop pouring most of their resources into the defense. I thought that was clear. 

Because being 2 deep in the DL has been more important to this team than building the first sting OL or drafting the BPA. 

How do you know that Boogie Basham wasn't BPA over Creed Humphrey?

[PBF81]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:04 PM, BarleyNY said:

I think that this regime’s drafting has been solid overall.

 

For the sake of discussion, I'll address this part of your original post.  

 

What's the criteria you use to draw that conclusion?  

 

Many people, fans and media alike, recognize that the team hasn't gotten X-th pick value out of their X-th picks.  To me that would determine how "solid" a GM's/Team's drafts are.  Day-3 picks that turn into starters happen to all teams, so unless there's a bunch of 'em that's a wash.  

 

So I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion?    It's the premise of your entire post which is why I ask.  

 

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by PBF81

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

For the sake of discussion, I'll address this part of your original post.  

 

What's the criteria you use to draw that conclusion?  

 

Many people, fans and media alike, recognize that the team hasn't gotten X-th pick value out of their X-th picks.  To me that would determine how "solid" a GM's/Team's drafts are.  Day-3 picks that turn into starters happen to all teams, so unless there's a bunch of 'em that's a wash.  

 

So I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion?    It's the premise of your entire post which is why I ask.  

 

 

I think that many people, fans and media alike, overestimate what impact it is reasonable to expect with the X-th pick.

Would it be great if every 1st and 2nd round pick, regardless of being early, middle or late in the round, turn out to be stars?  Of course, but that isn’t how it always works out and no team is immune from disappointing outcomes for many reasons.

Edited February 21, 2023 by OldTimer1960

[John from Riverside]

Sometimes you just really want to be a fly on the wall in the conversations for the team
 

Brandon bean has shown the ability to bring in offensive talent. He did it the year that he traded the first round pick for Stefon Diggs that ***** was genius in the offense immediately got better.

 

But

 

The cursory wave that we appear to do whenever it comes to pass, protection and run blocking, is very frustrating

 

It’s like we got the really nice house, but decided to go cheap on the insurance

 

Josh Allen masks a lot he really is one of the best players in the league. The problem is when we get into the playoffs where all the teams are good you can only mask so much.

 

I would really like to see this team make a concerted effort to create a team that if Josh Allen was not behind center we would still win. I feel like that’s the mentality that they have to take in order to get the rest of the way there.

 

Absolutely no defensive players with that first round pick

[OldTimer1960]

2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Sometimes you just really want to be a fly on the wall in the conversations for the team
 

Brandon bean has shown the ability to bring in offensive talent. He did it the year that he traded the first round pick for Stefon Diggs that ***** was genius in the offense immediately got better.

 

But

 

The cursory wave that we appear to do whenever it comes to pass, protection and run blocking, is very frustrating

 

It’s like we got the really nice house, but decided to go cheap on the insurance

 

Josh Allen masks a lot he really is one of the best players in the league. The problem is when we get into the playoffs where all the teams are good you can only mask so much.

 

I would really like to see this team make a concerted effort to create a team that if Josh Allen was not behind center we would still win. I feel like that’s the mentality that they have to take in order to get the rest of the way there.

 

Absolutely no defensive players with that first round pick

Eliminating half the players in the draft from consideration probably isn’t the best strategy.

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Eliminating half the players in the draft from consideration probably isn’t the best strategy.

It’s not about eliminating players. It’s about creating a team that can actually play come playoff time.
 

Taking a defensive player with that first pic would just be more of the same let McDermott coach up his defense

[Paup 1995MVP]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I think that is more the issue...our system is the core problem is my personal opinion, and its why I have turned sour on Frazier.  Our number 1 and number ranked defenses were inept in the postseason the past 2 seasons which were clearly our best shots since Kelly era at a SB.  Meanwhile, the very offenses that dominated us were held in check the next week and both lost to teams with the 16th and 17th ranked defenses.  

 

Additionally, after putting up 2 sacks for the Bills last year, and 4.5 sacks the 2 years prior to that...Hughes was let go and put up 9 sacks on the leagues worst team this year.  Despite the fact he was labeled washed by most everyone here at his age.  

 

At some point, when our defense is hemorrhaging points and yards every post season exit and you are still not getting pressure despite the investments in the front 7 to get pressure you have to start looking at the system.  Not only did we give up a FG to Chiefs in 13 seconds last year, we did it again this year in just 12 seconds at end of first half in KC.  

 

I have lost all faith in our defensive system being the right fit.  I know it also has McD's fingerprints on this defense, but I think this defense can use some new thoughts and concepts to incorporate into it.  Not to mention, McD already had to strip Frazier of his play calling duties before in the past, and the D instantly improved.  In the Cincy game, it was reported by Tim Graham that McD was screaming when he saw our DB's ten yards off the LOS on a key 3rd and 4 as well, but Frazier and the D didn't adjust and gave up the easiest conversion.  

 

Something has to change defensively IMHO.  And while I don't expect any kind of complete over haul while McD is the HC, I would like to see some new thoughts, new play calling, and new blood inserted into it.  

Good thoughts Alpha.  You know your football.  I did not know that Jerry Hughes had 9 sacks this past season.  That's impressive for any team.  But given how bad the Texans were record wise, that's even more impressive.  Is he planning on playing another season with the Texans?

 

Lets hope that the disaster that was the Bengals playoff game is the low point for this defense.  And that changes to our defensive system are made.  A more aggressive attacking defense is definitely needed.  Don't need safeties lining up 20+ yards beyond the line of scrimmage on most plays, with corners 8-10 yards off WR's.  Makes it too easy for the opposing offense.  And the mindset is one of passivity.  That can not be in professional football.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

If I've got it right the Bills organization structure has both the GM and HC reporting into ownership.  So, they're sort of co-GM's.  I think that's a problem but one that's easily correctable.  If I'm Pegula, I would address that by changing the reporting relationships to HC to GM and GM to owner.  That's put Beane clearly in charge of the draft and all other personnel decisions.  At this point I think its better to concentrate this responsibility with the GM to remove any real or imagined bias towards picking defensive players.  I expect there's not much of a chance this happens.  

 

I agree they've neglected the offense for one reason or another and not surrounding your QB with protection and more weapons given the way the league favors the offenses and how unique of a talent they've got in Allen is a major blunder.  Whether its McDermott's influence or defensive bias on the selections or how the board is set up.  I think they still need to go BPA vs. pure need but if there's a close score between an offensive vs. a defensive guy the offense needs to take priority.    

Edited February 22, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I think that many people, fans and media alike, overestimate what impact it is reasonable to expect with the X-th pick.

Would it be great if every 1st and 2nd round pick, regardless of being early, middle or late in the round, turn out to be stars?  Of course, but that isn’t how it always works out and no team is immune from disappointing outcomes for many reasons.

 

No, of course not, but you have to hit some of 'em.   Say you have three picks, one each in the first three rounds, it's not unreasonble that at least one of those three equal or exceed their related draft spot.  We've not gotten that, not even close.  Other than Allen, jury's out on Rousseau, but otherwise a swing-and-a-miss.  

 

Either way, that's how good teams are built so that they don't get into cap hell.  If it's reasonable to get all starters on day 3, great, but where are they here.  Beane hasn't done a good job, that's why we're regressing and in worse cap shape than we were when he got here, or the same anyway.  

[Jeff1954]

Great discussion. Thanks. Will be better able to judge the 2022 draft next season when, hopefully, Cook, Shakir, Elam, and Benford should get a lot more touches. (Not going to comment on Bernard- didn’t see him.)

Being realistic, Beane will be here for years yet. So he should be. It is up to the coaches to give his picks the best chance to be successful. We can’t judge the quality of the picks if the players aren’t given more chances. Or are the coaches telling us what they think of the picks?

I would really value people’s opinions in this regard on the almost non-use of Nyheim Hines in the offence after the trade as he is effectively one of this year’s fifth round picks.

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

For the sake of discussion, I'll address this part of your original post.  

 

What's the criteria you use to draw that conclusion?  

 

Many people, fans and media alike, recognize that the team hasn't gotten X-th pick value out of their X-th picks.  To me that would determine how "solid" a GM's/Team's drafts are.  Day-3 picks that turn into starters happen to all teams, so unless there's a bunch of 'em that's a wash.  

 

So I'm curious how you arrive at that conclusion?    It's the premise of your entire post which is why I ask.  

 

 

I’ve looked at a lot of different analyses of draft performance. Here is a three part one that does a decent job. Harvard has put out some good stuff on it too. I think casual fans expect far too much success from draft picks. Just look at the optimism on this board for late round picks. The statistics do not bear that out at all.

 

I think this regime has been in the average range as far as pick usage. Let’s look at their first round picks. According to the analysis linked above first round picks’ performance is:

- 30% Players who perform well enough to get their second contract with the team that drafted them. These are almost always premium contracts. 

- 50% Players who sign their second contract with another team. These are usually lesser contracts. 

- 20% Players who bust and are out of the league. 
- Early picks have a better success rate than later ones. 
 

Looking at the Bills first round pick usage they got:

- Tre White, elite CB in top 30% group

- Josh Allen, elite QB in top 30% group

- Tre Edmunds, arguably in the top 30% and definitely in the 50% group

- Oliver, probably in the 50% group. Good player who didn’t live up to his top 10 draft slot.

- Trade for Diggs, certainly a talent well worth that pick. You can discount it somewhat due to the extra contract expense. Still, excellent value.

- Rousseau - TBD, but I think he’s already safely in the 50% group. He could wind up in the top 30% group tho. 
- Elam - TBD. 
 

That performance is much better than league average. I think if I ran through the second round we’d come back to Earth because the Bills have definitely underperformed there. After that I think we’d be pretty average since league wide performance falls off every round. Obviously coaching and development play a part too, but that’s where my head is at. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

I’ve looked at a lot of different analyses of draft performance. Here is a three part one that does a decent job. Harvard has put out some good stuff on it too. I think casual fans expect far too much success from draft picks. Just look at the optimism on this board for late round picks. The statistics do not bear that out at all.

 

I think this regime has been in the average range as far as pick usage. Let’s look at their first round picks. According to the analysis linked above first round picks’ performance is:

- 30% Players who perform well enough to get their second contract with the team that drafted them. These are almost always premium contracts. 

- 50% Players who sign their second contract with another team. These are usually lesser contracts. 

- 20% Players who bust and are out of the league. 
- Early picks have a better success rate than later ones. 
 

Looking at the Bills first round pick usage they got:

- Tre White, elite CB in top 30% group

- Josh Allen, elite QB in top 30% group

- Tre Edmunds, arguably in the top 30% and definitely in the 50% group

- Oliver, probably in the 50% group. Good player who didn’t live up to his top 10 draft slot.

- Trade for Diggs, certainly a talent well worth that pick. You can discount it somewhat due to the extra contract expense. Still, excellent value.

- Rousseau - TBD, but I think he’s already safely in the 50% group. He could wind up in the top 30% group tho. 
- Elam - TBD. 
 

That performance is much better than league average. I think if I ran through the second round we’d come back to Earth because the Bills have definitely underperformed there. After that I think we’d be pretty average since league wide performance falls off every round. Obviously coaching and development play a part too, but that’s where my head is at. 

 

Thanks, I'll look that over in detail when I have time.  I don't care the source, good analysis is good analysis.  I'm curious what their base criteria(s) is/are.  

 

I'll get back to you ... 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

I’ve looked at a lot of different analyses of draft performance. Here is a three part one that does a decent job. Harvard has put out some good stuff on it too. I think casual fans expect far too much success from draft picks. Just look at the optimism on this board for late round picks. The statistics do not bear that out at all.

 

I think this regime has been in the average range as far as pick usage. Let’s look at their first round picks. According to the analysis linked above first round picks’ performance is:

- 30% Players who perform well enough to get their second contract with the team that drafted them. These are almost always premium contracts. 

- 50% Players who sign their second contract with another team. These are usually lesser contracts. 

- 20% Players who bust and are out of the league. 
- Early picks have a better success rate than later ones. 
 

Looking at the Bills first round pick usage they got:

- Tre White, elite CB in top 30% group

- Josh Allen, elite QB in top 30% group

- Tre Edmunds, arguably in the top 30% and definitely in the 50% group

- Oliver, probably in the 50% group. Good player who didn’t live up to his top 10 draft slot.

- Trade for Diggs, certainly a talent well worth that pick. You can discount it somewhat due to the extra contract expense. Still, excellent value.

- Rousseau - TBD, but I think he’s already safely in the 50% group. He could wind up in the top 30% group tho. 
- Elam - TBD. 
 

That performance is much better than league average. I think if I ran through the second round we’d come back to Earth because the Bills have definitely underperformed there. After that I think we’d be pretty average since league wide performance falls off every round. Obviously coaching and development play a part too, but that’s where my head is at. 

 

But right away I can tell you that my very first question is going to be if we've done even an average job at drafting, then why do we have all the holes that we have in so many positions, why is our OL so mediocre, which is what we're talking about here, the OL, AND are in cap trouble like we were when he inherited the team.   A good GM should be able to at least stay out of cap trouble if he hasn't built a lights-out team, and we're far from that.  We'll see ... 

[Mango]

9 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Prior to the draft I not only predicted that the Bills first round pick would be a CB, but I predicted that we’d trade up slightly to take that CB. The reason was that it was so incredibly obvious we’d have to draft one we would get jumped for our player if we didn’t move up. That is the epitome of drafting for need.

 

I don’t know how you can talk about how important corners are in our division, but completely ignore how important better wide receivers would be. I’d think WR2 and WR3 would be worth investing more than day 3 picks. Meanwhile we’ve got two first round picks invested in CBs. The lines are even more unbalanced. Two firsts and a huge FA contract on the DL with two seconds backing them up. Meanwhile the OL has a second and a third on it - less than what’s backing up the DL.

 

I do not begrudge using some resources on the defense - especially at CB and DL, but there’s no balance here. Josh Allen is by far this team’s biggest asset. My point is that we should invest in optimizing that asset. The fact that this is an offense driven league only make that more critical to the Bills success. 

My big thing is return on investment. If the DL and our outside corners were lights out we’d have little complaint. 
 

But here we are 8 weeks from the draft and we still have to address the secondary and defensive line as well as our ignored OL. 

[OldTimer1960]

9 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

No, of course not, but you have to hit some of 'em.   Say you have three picks, one each in the first three rounds, it's not unreasonble that at least one of those three equal or exceed their related draft spot.  We've not gotten that, not even close.  Other than Allen, jury's out on Rousseau, but otherwise a swing-and-a-miss.  

 

Either way, that's how good teams are built so that they don't get into cap hell.  If it's reasonable to get all starters on day 3, great, but where are they here.  Beane hasn't done a good job, that's why we're regressing and in worse cap shape than we were when he got here, or the same anyway.  

I disagree that none of their early picks have met expectations.  Greg Rousseau is really coming on as a complete DE and he  is still very young.  Edmunds, for all the complaints on this board about him, is about to get paid a lot by some team because he is better than fans see him as.  Harrison Phillips is a starter for the Vikings.  I know that Ed Oliver isn’t Aaron Donald, but he is a good starting DT who is as good or better than many others picked around that time in that draft.

 

I concede that Cody Ford was a whiff and that Epenesa and Basham haven’t met what we might expect for 2nd round picks, but I haven’t written either off.  Epenesa has shown flashes as a pass rusher and I still think that Basham will be a decent pro.

 

Of course, I think we can all agree that Josh Allen has exceeded the expectations for his draft position.

[BarleyNY]

8 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

But right away I can tell you that my very first question is going to be if we've done even an average job at drafting, then why do we have all the holes that we have in so many positions, why is our OL so mediocre, which is what we're talking about here, the OL, AND are in cap trouble like we were when he inherited the team.   A good GM should be able to at least stay out of cap trouble if he hasn't built a lights-out team, and we're far from that.  We'll see ... 

 

I have a couple thoughts on that. There’s more to building a team than hitting on a reasonable percentage of draft picks. Not that the Bills haven’t developed into a top team. They have. They just haven’t won it all.
 

As for the picks, the issue is more the forest than any single tree IMO. Over six drafts this team has used 5 of 7 first round picks on defense. The only monster FA contract was also on defense. The only offensive use was the Allen pick and the Diggs trade. If you look at the rosters of other top teams I don’t think you’ll find them skewed in that direction. Here’s a good link for that. So I think the lack of resources used on offense is a big issue.

 

As for the cap, we are at a point where we have a budget. Everything is a choice of this or that, not yes or no. But we aren’t in cap hell or anything. There are obvious places to clear space and we’ll be able to fill out our roster with lower tier FAs. We could make at least one moderate or big FA signing too. That big one depends on whether the re-sign Edmunds. More money to spend if we make some other moves too. Again, this or that.

 

I wish there were some great FA WRs coming on the market. It would be easy to say we should spend on one instead of Edmunds. My biggest issue with re-signing him is that it would be yet more resources spent on that side of the ball. It might not happen in one season, but I think investing in the offense is the way to success in the postseason. Solidifying the OL and finding another offensive playmaker (who we will use) should be jobs 1 & 2 this off-season IMO. 

[BarleyNY]

8 hours ago, Mango said:

My big thing is return on investment. If the DL and our outside corners were lights out we’d have little complaint. 
 

But here we are 8 weeks from the draft and we still have to address the secondary and defensive line as well as our ignored OL. 

Sure. I don’t know that that’s a fair benchmark, but I get what you’re saying. For all the investment in it we should see a more dominant defense, especially in the playoffs. I also think in today’s NFL that, in general, ROI is better on offense than defense. A truly dominant pass rusher is probably an exception, but beyond that O>D. 

[NastyNateSoldiers]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:37 PM, starrymessenger said:

McD and Frazier do not appear to do offence. They are both defensive specialists. Their OC doesn't seem to do it well either. If developing the offence is the way forward I don't have the confidence right now that this staff can do it now that Daboll is gone.

 

This is gonna continue to be a problem for the Bills. If Dorsey has a great season he’s going to get hired as a head coach then we will repeat the cycle again with one next OC. The Bills should hire an older OC the next time like a Chan Gailey type he’s someone that will be strictly an OC nobody is hiring him as a head coach again. I won’t mind Chan Gailey he had great offenses with less talent and has never coached a QB like Allen. The Bills should at least bring him in as an senior assistant I guarantee we will be running screens next season . 😂 

[PBF81]

6 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I disagree that none of their early picks have met expectations.  Greg Rousseau is really coming on as a complete DE and he  is still very young.  Edmunds, for all the complaints on this board about him, is about to get paid a lot by some team because he is better than fans see him as.  Harrison Phillips is a starter for the Vikings.  I know that Ed Oliver isn’t Aaron Donald, but he is a good starting DT who is as good or better than many others picked around that time in that draft.

 

I concede that Cody Ford was a whiff and that Epenesa and Basham haven’t met what we might expect for 2nd round picks, but I haven’t written either off.  Epenesa has shown flashes as a pass rusher and I still think that Basham will be a decent pro.

 

Of course, I think we can all agree that Josh Allen has exceeded the expectations for his draft position.

 

Indeed, there's a lot of subjectivity there, and of course there are potentially as many standards for evaluating that as there are people doing the evaluating.  That's why I always consider the end-product in the analysis.  

 

Also, keep in mind that my comments are centered around getting the value of the pick used for the player selected with that particular pick.  If a player is chosen 5th overall, but develops into an average starter, that's not what was supposed to happen with that pick.  The fact that draft picks often don't pan out really has nothign to do with that angle.  And I for one am in the camp that it's only a few people that put together these pre-draft rankings, Kiper, Mayock, maybe one or two more, that rarely disagree other than that one says "mid-1st" while another says "late 1st or early second, and that just about everyone else doing rankings and mock drafts goes by that standard.  There are players every year that I ask myself "why so high," or conversely, how come no one's talking about this guy before day 3.  But that's another thing too.  

 

Anyway, let's between you and I create a simple system here on the players that you mentioned, and see what pops up.  I'm doing this for the first time as I write this.  So let's start with your players mentioned, and we'll assign them a "0" if the spot where they were drafted matches their performance to date, a "-" if its' less than that, a "+" if it's better, a "--" if it's really bad, and a "++" if it's a diamond in the rought.  For example, and not in this discussion because it's pre-Beane, Milano's a ++ for a 5th rounder, a late 5th at that.  

 

So ... 

 

Rousseau (30th) - As I remember, and I could be off, but it was a weak year for DEs, and being a U Miami fan myself, I know that Rousseau was used in an odd way down there, which the team recognized, but which also made it more difficult to tie him to a particular position.  Having said that, His rookie season was lackluster, not bad, not good.  This past season his first three games were fire but after that he did next to nothing.  There was even a lengthy analysis by someone prominent that showed how when Von Miller wasn't there he played poorly.  Either way, he put up half, HALF, of his numbers in the first three games when the entire team was on fire and filled with emotion.  We averaged 36 PF and 8.5 PA in the first two games.  The third was his collegiate home field Miami.  After that he was pretty pedestrian averageing 1 sack every other game with two of them being against Mike White and the Jets and another vs. Jones.  I'm not sure what "coming on" means in this context.  If anything he regressed, he didn't "come on" as the season wore on.  So I'd have to assign him a (-) here.  I expect more from my 1st-rounders drafted to be pass-rushers in their second seasons.  But let me ask you, if we had the 30th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Rousseau is at his position?

 

Edmunds (trade-up 16th) - I expect a lot for a pick like this, I expect an impact player.  We cannot overlook the opportunity cost of the picks involved either.  "Getting paid" and performing are often two different things, and we know that players in free-agency often get paid more than they're worth.  And we'll see what he gets.  I like Edmunds and as with you don't understand the hammering he's taken here.  IMO he's a fish out of water, which I won't go into, but it hasn't been fair to him.  Having said that, much like Oliver, he disappears for games.  He's also hard to grade because of the way that they use him, which IMO is incorrectly having watched him at VA Tech, but because he didn't play very well for 4 seasons but kicked it into another gear this season.  For all five seasons I'd give him a (-).  For this season alone, maybe a (0).  I was impressed, but again, for a mid-1st-rounder, trade-up no less, I expect more.  I will say that I expect him to do more elsewhere in a more traditional D scheme.  So this is a tough one.  I really think we could have helped Edmunds be much better and I question the pick for a team that was going to used him as they have, so it's not all on him IMO, ... as well, we're now getting into Beane and how good Beane is.  Edmunds has been good, but he's far from being an impact player.  Like Oliver he's also streaky.  There are games when you don't even hear his name.  But I'll ask the same thing here, if we had the 16th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Edmunds has been over five seasons is at his position?

 

Phillips (96th overall, late 3rd) - I really like Phillips and would have kept him.  To get a perennial solid starter from a late 3rd pick is good value.  I'd give this a (0) or a (+)  If Spencer Brown were playing at the same level for a 92nd overall ...    But then we let Phillips walk.  [shrug]  Again, ... Beane.  I don't think it's fair for someone (others here) to talk about Beane's drafts, and use a player that we let walk for cheap that is cited as a good draft pick.  OK, let's say we all agree, then why let him walk?  That's on Beane.  We could have had him for less than the Vikes paid too.  

 

Oliver (9th overall) - BTW, I noticed that you only cited the 1st rounders and Phillips in your defense of Beane here, and none of the 2nd rounders or early-mid 3rds.  Just sayin'.  At 9th overall, top-10, I expect a lot.  I expect an impact-player.  I expect an impact player even in the mid-1st.  (Edmunds)  There was a whole lotta talk about Oliver being like Donald.  He's been nothing close.  Would you say that he's an impact player?  I would not.  I would say that he's a solid starter, at best.  He'll take over a game from the DL perspective here and there, like a lot of players, and like he did two or three times this season, but he's not a player that takes over games regularly.  Again, like Edmunds, there are games, streaks of games, where you don't hear his name at all.  I'd give that pick a (-).  Again, doesn't mean that he's not good, but it means that he hasn't lived up to the 9th overall.  And again, I'll ask, if we had the 9th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Edmunds has been over five seasons is at his position?

 

If you continue to do this for our 2nd and 3rd rounders, you're going to have some (-) and (--) rankings.  I'll give you mine.  Ford (--), Singletary (-), Knox (0), Moss (-), Epenesa (--), Basham (-), Brown (-).  I won't touch Elam, Cook, or Bernard because they were rookies, but I will say this, Elam at 23rd I expect an instant solid starter which he wasn't, and given the state of our RBs coming in, for a late 2nd round RB I also expected the same from Cook and he wasn't that either.  Coaching can be blamed, but then blame coaching.  People defend one by blaming the other interchangably which is funny.  

 

And BTW, as per Brown above, it's also important to recognize that the two OL-men taken immeidately after him, and numerous others on day-3, are much better than Brown, which should also introduce questions into Beane's draft methodology.  

 

Anyway your rankings will likely be different.  But again, on all of those, if you have the draft picks associated with where they were drafted this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as [that player] has been over five seasons is at his position?  

 

As for me, I expect more.  If we're not getting more, then I certainly think that it's quite reasonable to assess why we aren't.  

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by PBF81

[PBF81]

14 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

I’ve looked at a lot of different analyses of draft performance. Here is a three part one that does a decent job. Harvard has put out some good stuff on it too. I think casual fans expect far too much success from draft picks. Just look at the optimism on this board for late round picks. The statistics do not bear that out at all.

 

I think this regime has been in the average range as far as pick usage. Let’s look at their first round picks. According to the analysis linked above first round picks’ performance is:

- 30% Players who perform well enough to get their second contract with the team that drafted them. These are almost always premium contracts. 

- 50% Players who sign their second contract with another team. These are usually lesser contracts. 

- 20% Players who bust and are out of the league. 
- Early picks have a better success rate than later ones. 
 

Looking at the Bills first round pick usage they got:

- Tre White, elite CB in top 30% group

- Josh Allen, elite QB in top 30% group

- Tre Edmunds, arguably in the top 30% and definitely in the 50% group

- Oliver, probably in the 50% group. Good player who didn’t live up to his top 10 draft slot.

- Trade for Diggs, certainly a talent well worth that pick. You can discount it somewhat due to the extra contract expense. Still, excellent value.

- Rousseau - TBD, but I think he’s already safely in the 50% group. He could wind up in the top 30% group tho. 
- Elam - TBD. 
 

That performance is much better than league average. I think if I ran through the second round we’d come back to Earth because the Bills have definitely underperformed there. After that I think we’d be pretty average since league wide performance falls off every round. Obviously coaching and development play a part too, but that’s where my head is at. 

 

I read that and my first thought going into it was that it has a lot of [statistical] balls in the air, and anytime I read something like that relating to sports, I always immediately think that someone's trying to mathematize perfectly a sport which involves the human element, which is impossible.  The second thing that stood out is that it was highly correlated to contracts paid.  I would challenge or at least question several of the premises of their methodology, but that's just me.  

 

For one, we are all aware of players that don't play well thru four seasons, don't get their 5th-year option exercised, then play very well that 5th year, get signed elsewhere, and don't play up to the level of their contract.   Just like teams and players have "seasons" in the looser sense of the word, not necessarily a season of play per se, where they collectively or individually play much better than they did the rest of the time, I'm sure that there's at least some correlation to that occurring for those 5th-year non-signees.  I didn't see any provision for that in the study as one example.  

 

Having said that, it would be tedious and even perhaps difficult to challenge their results because based upon their criteria, those are the results.  I didn't see anything about the Bills in there particularly.  

 

But what I'm talking about is different.  We traded up to get Edmunds, who wasn't worth the 16th overall.  We could have done much better with the original picks and had more of them, for example.  

 

Everyone seems to have leapfrogged the original point in my statement, which had little to do with the picks that Beane did make for the OL, but it was the fact, established fact, that Beane has spent fewer resources on days 1 & 2 of ANY team in the league on the OL.  Put another way, you're never going to build a solid OL by not drafting any OL-men.  Ford (38th overall) and Brown (93rd) overall are it in five seasons, then journeymen free-agents otherwise typically on 1-2 year contracts.  That's my point.  

 

If I tasked you with building a shed and sent you to the local farmers market this Saturday to get the supplies, you're not going to be building much of a shed.  

 

We can discuss why Beane didn't perceive the need for consuming resources on the OL, and McBeane's over attention to building the DL & F7, despite the fact that shortly we'll only have one starting caliber LB on the team, but that's been discussed here a lot.  

 

Why has Beane only seen fit to draft two OL-men, one early 2nd and another late 3rd, as the only solutions to an obviously problematic OL?  We don't know, but it's a great question if you ask me.  

 

Then, let's ask ourselves why Brown at the time, at 93rd, when the two OL-men selected immediately after him at 94th and 95th are both solid starters now, one very good?  What did Beane see in Brown but not in those other two?  

 

I also think that GMs and Scouting Depts. pay too much attention to draft rankings.  I have no problem with going off of the media's board, but when you do, if you select players like Zay Jones, Bernard, Basham, and Epenesa, you'd better be right, and he wasn't.  

 

I've had the mindset over the past two seasons, that we sorely need LBs as we only had two starting caliber LBs (Milano and Edmunds), now soon to be down to only one.  I've been told that's not important because of the scheme's that they run.  I would upset the conventional-thinking cart and ask, how do we know they're not running those schemes because they don't have the LB manpower to do much else?  Either way, here we are now, with only one solid LB on the roster.  I'm not sure how our D is good this season like that.  Did they not see it coming?  If not, why not, it should have been obvious from a big-picture standpoint, and that's what a GM is paid to do, manage the big-picture, right?  

 

A good GM will keep his cap in check, we've not done that, and at the same time it's hardly because of an overabundance of talent causing it.  Anyway, let's move on to your statements in context.  

Quote

 

I think this regime has been in the average range as far as pick usage. Let’s look at their first round picks. According to the analysis linked above first round picks’ performance is:

- 30% Players who perform well enough to get their second contract with the team that drafted them. These are almost always premium contracts. 

- 50% Players who sign their second contract with another team. These are usually lesser contracts. 

- 20% Players who bust and are out of the league. 
- Early picks have a better success rate than later ones. 

 

 

Again, there's a ton of room for subjectivity here, and again, we need to realize that we're merely discussing this amongst ourselves, nothing we say or do will change anything, it's pissing into the wind for the most part.  LOL  

 

"Second contracts" can be good or bad, I didn't see anything in that analysis that made any distinction, one of my issues with it.  Take Dareus for example.  He'd be an example of a great draft pick in their analysis.  But the opposite is true.  A team full of "Dareus values" isn't going anywhere.  

 

But again, I'm talking about the players actually selected.  You would have to put names and contracts of our drafted players to discuss that further.  Without looking at the actual data who knows what the reality is.  

Quote

 

Looking at the Bills first round pick usage they got:

- Tre White, elite CB in top 30% group

- Josh Allen, elite QB in top 30% group

- Tre Edmunds, arguably in the top 30% and definitely in the 50% group

- Oliver, probably in the 50% group. Good player who didn’t live up to his top 10 draft slot.

- Trade for Diggs, certainly a talent well worth that pick. You can discount it somewhat due to the extra contract expense. Still, excellent value.

- Rousseau - TBD, but I think he’s already safely in the 50% group. He could wind up in the top 30% group tho. 
- Elam - TBD. 
 

That performance is much better than league average. I think if I ran through the second round we’d come back to Earth because the Bills have definitely underperformed there. After that I think we’d be pretty average since league wide performance falls off every round. Obviously coaching and development play a part too, but that’s where my head is at. 

 

 

On this, we can bump of White because he wasn't a Beane draftee.  Allen, yes, for sure.  Even at 7th he's exceeded expectations.  

 

But Edmunds?  Highly debatable.  Also, in a prior post, we also have to discuss how the drafted players are used.  Edmunds hasn't been placed in an optimal situation, which I speculate is why he prefers to go elsewhere now, not merely the money.  Anyone that watched him at VA Tech understands this.  I was jacked when we drafted him, but I've been PO'd at how we've used him.  Very inefficently IMO.  

 

Oliver, for 9th overall, I'll ask the same that I asked in another thread, for both him and Edmunds, if we had the 9th overall and 16th overall picks right now, this year, is your expectation for the drafted players to be be what Oliver and Edmunds are now?  Or more?  For me it's more.  

 

As to Diggs, agree on the talent, but the purpose of the draft is to get players that perform at Diggs' level, on rookie contracts for 4-5 seasons.  You can't stock your team across the board with free agents like that, trading away your entire draft, because you'd be over cap in no time.  That's where good GMs earn their keep.  Why did we even have to go out and buy a WR?  

 

I'll put it another way, which GM got the better of the Diggs for our 22nd pick trade?  (plus at least three other picks)   

 

Minny's GM did.  They got Justin Jefferson for just over $3M/season, we got Diggs for an average of what, $24M/season.  Frankly, Jefferson's outplaying Diggs with an inferior QB.  So how that bodes well for Beane in contrast is beyond me.  

 

But that highlights the fact that when you don't draft well, the only choice you have is to pay through your nose because you're not getting value for your day 1 & 2 draft picks to keep that cap down, one of the primary jobs of a GM.  

 

Elam, fine, no argument.  

 

Rousseau, not so much.  He did little last year in his rookie season.  He started with bang over the first three games, someone said he's "coming on," but that's not the case.  After that fast start he didn't do much, average at best on a good day.  For a 1st-round DE pick you expect some sacks, TFLs, and QB Hits, more than we're getting from Rousseau, and in particular more than we got from him over his last ten games.  So TBD yes, but if the trend holds, we'll need DEs too.  

 

At the end of the day, how many impact players do we have on D going into the draft?  With Poyer gone, I count Milano.  That's it.  White needs to prove that he can come back 100% or even 80%.  He didn't play well this season, not at all.  Left guys wide open consistently.  So we have one impact player, sure, add another if you like, major OL issues, now WR issues, could use better TE play, an unsettled RB situation with more "hope" in the form of Cook,  and significant cap issues.  

 

It is what it is.  But I don't see how that's even approaching maximizing our Drafts.  I see the opposite.  Allen can't do everything all the time, he's not going to last like that.  

 

 

[PBF81]

4 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

 

I have a couple thoughts on that. There’s more to building a team than hitting on a reasonable percentage of draft picks. Not that the Bills haven’t developed into a top team. They have. They just haven’t won it all.
 

As for the picks, the issue is more the forest than any single tree IMO. Over six drafts this team has used 5 of 7 first round picks on defense. The only monster FA contract was also on defense. The only offensive use was the Allen pick and the Diggs trade. If you look at the rosters of other top teams I don’t think you’ll find them skewed in that direction. Here’s a good link for that. So I think the lack of resources used on offense is a big issue.

 

As for the cap, we are at a point where we have a budget. Everything is a choice of this or that, not yes or no. But we aren’t in cap hell or anything. There are obvious places to clear space and we’ll be able to fill out our roster with lower tier FAs. We could make at least one moderate or big FA signing too. That big one depends on whether the re-sign Edmunds. More money to spend if we make some other moves too. Again, this or that.

 

I wish there were some great FA WRs coming on the market. It would be easy to say we should spend on one instead of Edmunds. My biggest issue with re-signing him is that it would be yet more resources spent on that side of the ball. It might not happen in one season, but I think investing in the offense is the way to success in the postseason. Solidifying the OL and finding another offensive playmaker (who we will use) should be jobs 1 & 2 this off-season IMO. 

 

You know that I disagree with much of that.  LOL   

 

My first thought is that Allen is doing much more and covering up much more of our coaching and GM deficiencies than most realize.  Take Allen out of the mix and as I've said, IMO we don't win the division once on these guys' watch.  In fact, we're on the lower end of that "Last 20 Years" thing.  

 

As to ourlads, one of my go-to sites along with spotrac, both have been for years.  pro-football-reference the other.  

 

Which was the "monster FA contract" on D that you mentioned?  Because Lotulolei got a lot and added little.  Neither Addison nor Murphy were cheap either and neither added much there either.  All three were overpaid despite perhaps not having a "monster contract."  

 

As to the rest, we'll see what they do.  I addressed a lot of this stuff in my last response to you.  That'll take some time to read and digest.  I'm really enjoying the back-n-forth here, thanks!!! 

 

But let me ask you, how do you envision our current needs?   Let's look forward and assess as the offseason develops.  

 

 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:19 PM, Don Otreply said:

Yup, don’t disagree so much, although the offense was imo, not supported properly personnel wise,  (yes I know they hired a bunch of O side coaches to supposedly assist with this).

 

   I am referring to a rookie OC that lacked experience in personnel use, play design, and sequencing the play calling, ( which was brought up by former successful QBs who saw it this way)  this played a part in why we struggled to beat lesser and equal teams, it was the previously mentioned O side coaches who imo should have been more proactive in helping out Dorsey when the offense started to struggle during the second half of the season, assisting the rookie OC was in theory why they were hired,  what ever was going on wasn’t working so well  as the season progressed.
 

Water under the bridge at this point…,  fingers crossed going forward, 

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

But what was the alliterative?  Not give Dorsey the job and hire someone from outside?  Agree was risk and many of the things you mention did surface to some extend.  Was it Dorsey's fault, or was problem really elsewhere, hard to say for certain.   

 

But you don't know either many brand new OC's did very well, eventually becoming a HC elsewhere, where ironically they'd often fail.  Plus going elsewhere, highly likely Dorsey would have bolted, likely to Giants, and ran the risk of ticking off your franchise QB in the process.  Also whomever is brought in, run the risk of them not jelling with Allen, or wanting to change things up a lot, maybe for the better or maybe for the worse. 

 

It was a gamble they took, certainly didn't work out as well as hoped for, but not a total failure either when you look at the numbers were still one of the top offense teams overall in the league.  Admittedly the eyeball test didn't seem to totally agree with the numbers IMO

[Don Otreply]

2 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

But what was the alliterative?  Not give Dorsey the job and hire someone from outside?  Agree was risk and many of the things you mention did surface to some extend.  Was it Dorsey's fault, or was problem really elsewhere, hard to say for certain.   

 

But you don't know either many brand new OC's did very well, eventually becoming a HC elsewhere, where ironically they'd often fail.  Plus going elsewhere, highly likely Dorsey would have bolted, likely to Giants, and ran the risk of ticking off your franchise QB in the process.  Also whomever is brought in, run the risk of them not jelling with Allen, or wanting to change things up a lot, maybe for the better or maybe for the worse. 

 

It was a gamble they took, certainly didn't work out as well as hoped for, but not a total failure either when you look at the numbers were still one of the top offense teams overall in the league.  Admittedly the eyeball test didn't seem to totally agree with the numbers IMO

   We Sure did have a good season overall, but we sure did struggle to beat some mediocre teams, and equal teams as the season progressed through to the post season .
 

    These issues primarily stem from play design/schemes, or poor execution, both of which fall to the GM, HC, and coordinators to remedy, via play/scheme adjustments, or personnel use adjustments, and some good old fashioned, do your job or you sit conversations, which can be done with polite language, and still get the point across.
 

   Back to the first sentence, we had a good regular season for three straight seasons, it’s been the post season readiness by either the coaches, or the players, and we have a coaching staff that apparently does not go in for meaningful/effective in game adjustments, we have watched this happen repeatedly, and no I don’t want to fire everyone, I just want to see some growth from our veteran and new coordinators that show a willingness to make those effective adjustments during games, especially in the post season, Frazier is a big road block to this sort of thought process by his own admission, so where and how do we go from here???

 

GO BILLS!!!

[FireChans]

11 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

 

I have a couple thoughts on that. There’s more to building a team than hitting on a reasonable percentage of draft picks. Not that the Bills haven’t developed into a top team. They have. They just haven’t won it all.
 

As for the picks, the issue is more the forest than any single tree IMO. Over six drafts this team has used 5 of 7 first round picks on defense. The only monster FA contract was also on defense. The only offensive use was the Allen pick and the Diggs trade. If you look at the rosters of other top teams I don’t think you’ll find them skewed in that direction. Here’s a good link for that. So I think the lack of resources used on offense is a big issue.

 

As for the cap, we are at a point where we have a budget. Everything is a choice of this or that, not yes or no. But we aren’t in cap hell or anything. There are obvious places to clear space and we’ll be able to fill out our roster with lower tier FAs. We could make at least one moderate or big FA signing too. That big one depends on whether the re-sign Edmunds. More money to spend if we make some other moves too. Again, this or that.

 

I wish there were some great FA WRs coming on the market. It would be easy to say we should spend on one instead of Edmunds. My biggest issue with re-signing him is that it would be yet more resources spent on that side of the ball. It might not happen in one season, but I think investing in the offense is the way to success in the postseason. Solidifying the OL and finding another offensive playmaker (who we will use) should be jobs 1 & 2 this off-season IMO. 

The Chiefs last year spent 2 firsts on a DE and CB. Drafted a WR who could barely see the field in the second.

 

The year prior, they drafted a LB in the second.

 

The year prior they drafted an RB in the first and a LB in the second.

 

They year prior they drafted a WR and a S in the second.

 

The year prior they drafted a DE in the second.  They traded their first for a DE.

 

So in the last FIVE years, the Chiefs have spent 7 of their 10 top picks on defensive players.  7 of 11 if you count the Orlando Brown trade.   They also got some picks back by TRADING AWAY a great offensive player and spending those picks on defense.

 

What is the difference between us and them in terms of strategy?  They drafted BETTER players. Period. They hit on some of their third and later picks. We didn't.  Period.

Edited February 23, 2023 by FireChans

[Big Blitz]

 

[jahnyc]

Would we be having this conversation if some of our draft picks for the defense were having more success?  Oliver, Espenesa and Basham clearly have underperformed for where they were drafted.  If one or two of these players turned out to be red or blue chip type players, our defense would be better and we would be satisfied with the drafting of these players and the point at which they were drafted.  

[OldTimer1960]

19 hours ago, PBF81 said:

Indeed, there's a lot of subjectivity there, and of course there are potentially as many standards for evaluating that as there are people doing the evaluating. 

 

Anyway, let's between you and I create a simple system here on the players that you mentioned, and see what pops up.  I'm doing this for the first time as I write this.  So let's start with your players mentioned, and we'll assign them a "0" if the spot where they were drafted matches their performance to date, a "-" if its' less than that, a "+" if it's better, a "--" if it's really bad, and a "++" if it's a diamond in the rought.  For example, and not in this discussion because it's pre-Beane, Milano's a ++ for a 5th rounder, a late 5th at that.  

 

So ... 

 

Rousseau (30th) - As I remember, and I could be off, but it was a weak year for DEs, and being a U Miami fan myself, I know that Rousseau was used in an odd way down there, which the team recognized, but which also made it more difficult to tie him to a particular position.  Having said that, His rookie season was lackluster, not bad, not good.  This past season his first three games were fire but after that he did next to nothing.  There was even a lengthy analysis by someone prominent that showed how when Von Miller wasn't there he played poorly.  Either way, he put up half, HALF, of his numbers in the first three games when the entire team was on fire and filled with emotion.  We averaged 36 PF and 8.5 PA in the first two games.  The third was his collegiate home field Miami.  After that he was pretty pedestrian averageing 1 sack every other game with two of them being against Mike White and the Jets and another vs. Jones.  I'm not sure what "coming on" means in this context.  If anything he regressed, he didn't "come on" as the season wore on.  So I'd have to assign him a (-) here.  I expect more from my 1st-rounders drafted to be pass-rushers in their second seasons.  But let me ask you, if we had the 30th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Rousseau is at his position?

 

Edmunds (trade-up 16th) - I expect a lot for a pick like this, I expect an impact player.  We cannot overlook the opportunity cost of the picks involved either.  "Getting paid" and performing are often two different things, and we know that players in free-agency often get paid more than they're worth.  And we'll see what he gets.  I like Edmunds and as with you don't understand the hammering he's taken here.  IMO he's a fish out of water, which I won't go into, but it hasn't been fair to him.  Having said that, much like Oliver, he disappears for games.  He's also hard to grade because of the way that they use him, which IMO is incorrectly having watched him at VA Tech, but because he didn't play very well for 4 seasons but kicked it into another gear this season.  For all five seasons I'd give him a (-).  For this season alone, maybe a (0).  I was impressed, but again, for a mid-1st-rounder, trade-up no less, I expect more.  I will say that I expect him to do more elsewhere in a more traditional D scheme.  So this is a tough one.  I really think we could have helped Edmunds be much better and I question the pick for a team that was going to used him as they have, so it's not all on him IMO, ... as well, we're now getting into Beane and how good Beane is.  Edmunds has been good, but he's far from being an impact player.  Like Oliver he's also streaky.  There are games when you don't even hear his name.  But I'll ask the same thing here, if we had the 16th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Edmunds has been over five seasons is at his position?

 

Phillips (96th overall, late 3rd) - I really like Phillips and would have kept him.  To get a perennial solid starter from a late 3rd pick is good value.  I'd give this a (0) or a (+)  If Spencer Brown were playing at the same level for a 92nd overall ...    But then we let Phillips walk.  [shrug]  Again, ... Beane.  I don't think it's fair for someone (others here) to talk about Beane's drafts, and use a player that we let walk for cheap that is cited as a good draft pick.  OK, let's say we all agree, then why let him walk?  That's on Beane.  We could have had him for less than the Vikes paid too.  

 

Oliver (9th overall) - BTW, I noticed that you only cited the 1st rounders and Phillips in your defense of Beane here, and none of the 2nd rounders or early-mid 3rds.  Just sayin'.  At 9th overall, top-10, I expect a lot.  I expect an impact-player.  I expect an impact player even in the mid-1st.  (Edmunds)  There was a whole lotta talk about Oliver being like Donald.  He's been nothing close.  Would you say that he's an impact player?  I would not.  I would say that he's a solid starter, at best.  He'll take over a game from the DL perspective here and there, like a lot of players, and like he did two or three times this season, but he's not a player that takes over games regularly.  Again, like Edmunds, there are games, streaks of games, where you don't hear his name at all.  I'd give that pick a (-).  Again, doesn't mean that he's not good, but it means that he hasn't lived up to the 9th overall.  And again, I'll ask, if we had the 9th overall this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as Edmunds has been over five seasons is at his position?

 

If you continue to do this for our 2nd and 3rd rounders, you're going to have some (-) and (--) rankings.  I'll give you mine.  Ford (--), Singletary (-), Knox (0), Moss (-), Epenesa (--), Basham (-), Brown (-).  I won't touch Elam, Cook, or Bernard because they were rookies, but I will say this, Elam at 23rd I expect an instant solid starter which he wasn't, and given the state of our RBs coming in, for a late 2nd round RB I also expected the same from Cook and he wasn't that either.  Coaching can be blamed, but then blame coaching.  People defend one by blaming the other interchangably which is funny.  

 

And BTW, as per Brown above, it's also important to recognize that the two OL-men taken immeidately after him, and numerous others on day-3, are much better than Brown, which should also introduce questions into Beane's draft methodology.  

 

Anyway your rankings will likely be different.  But again, on all of those, if you have the draft picks associated with where they were drafted this year, are you going in saying to yourself I hope we land someone that ends up being as good as [that player] has been over five seasons is at his position?  

 

As for me, I expect more.  If we're not getting more, then I certainly think that it's quite reasonable to assess why we aren't.  

 

 

Edmunds has been a multi-year starter on statistically very good defenses and made 2 Pro Bowls.  Players selected right after him included: Derwin James, Jaire Alexander, Leighton Vanderesch, Frank Ragnow, Billy Price, Rahsaan Evans, Isaiah Wynn.   Most of them good to very good players like Edmunds - you might argue that you like one of them better than Edmunds, but Edmunds fits pretty well in that group.

 

Ed Oliver has been a very good starter and has made impact plays.  I agree that he isn’t a complete game-changer, but he isn’t embarrassed by the group picked right after him : Devin Bush, Jonah Williams, Raschan Gary, Christian Wilkins.

 

Rousseau played with a high ankle sprain from week 9 on - those are tough to deal with.  Further, if the benchmark for draft success is a guy whose play isn’t impacted when another very important player (Miller) is lost, then that is a very high bar.  Does Rousseau stand out as a bone-head pick among the 5 or so players picked after him?

 

Devin Singletary has been fine for the 74th pick in a draft.  Picked right after were: Jake Sternberger, Terry McClaurin, Chase Winovich, Michael Dieter, David Long.  McClaurin is arguably better, but Singletary was a good productive pick in that spot.

 

You can only pick from the players that are available when your pick comes.  Is Beane’s draft record perfect?  No, I am not arguing that, but Beane has built a very good team and his drafting has been much better in my view than you see it.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by OldTimer1960

[PBF81]

2 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Edmunds has been a multi-year starter on statistically very good defenses and made 2 Pro Bowls.  Players selected right after him included: Derwin James, Jaire Alexander, Leighton Vanderesch, Frank Ragnow, Billy Price, Rahsaan Evans, Isaiah Wynn.   Most of them good to very good players like Edmunds - you might argue that you like one of them better than Edmunds, but Edmunds fits pretty well in that group.

 

Ed Oliver has been a very good starter and has made impact plays.  I agree that he isn’t a complete game-changer, but he isn’t embarrassed by the group picked right after him : Devin Bush, Jonah Williams, Raschan Gary, Christian Wilkins.

 

Devin Singletary has been fine for the 74th pick in a draft.  Picked right after were: Jake Sternberger, Terry McClaurin, Chase Winovich, Michael Dieter, David Long.  McClaurin is arguably better, but Singletary was a good productive pick in that spot.

 

You can only pick from the players that are available when your pick comes.  Is Beane’s draft record perfect?  No, I am not arguing that, but Beane has built a very good team and his drafting has been much better in my view than you see it.

 

OK

 

But who said, for example, that we had to trade up and select a LB, again, as mere one example.  

 

Or that at 9th that year we had to take a DT.  That's a flawed thought process.  

 

I'll continue to stand on my points, and if Beane has drafted so well, them why isn't the team incapable of competing without Allen.  Why, other than for Allen, have McBeane's predecessors generally speaking out together better overall rosters apart from the QB position.  Why do we have so many starting needs right now.  How come apart from Allen we have no drafted premier players, they either pre existed Beane or he had to buy them.  

 

I mean what, the best player we can produce in the draft is Oliver, at 9th overall on top of it?   ... and after that Edmunds at a trafde-up 16th?  And who after that not in the first 16 picks?  What, Singtletary?  That really seem good to you?  

[OldTimer1960]

56 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

OK

 

But who said, for example, that we had to trade up and select a LB, again, as mere one example.  

 

Or that at 9th that year we had to take a DT.  That's a flawed thought process.  

 

I'll continue to stand on my points, and if Beane has drafted so well, them why isn't the team incapable of competing without Allen.  Why, other than for Allen, have McBeane's predecessors generally speaking out together better overall rosters apart from the QB position.  Why do we have so many starting needs right now.  How come apart from Allen we have no drafted premier players, they either pre existed Beane or he had to buy them.  

 

I mean what, the best player we can produce in the draft is Oliver, at 9th overall on top of it?   ... and after that Edmunds at a trafde-up 16th?  And who after that not in the first 16 picks?  What, Singtletary?  That really seem good to you?  

Of course, they didn’t need to pick a DT at 9 when they took Oliver.  My point is that Oliver is as good as the other players, regardless of position, that we’re picked around that spot.  If your argument is that they should have spent the pick on another position for a roughly equal talent, then I won’t argue that point.  But, to say Oliver isn’t “9th pick good” absent the context of who else was available is just an opinion.

 

Likewise, you’re right, they didn’t have to trade up and they didn’t have to take a LB when they selected Edmunds, but Edmunds does compare well to others picked around that spot.  Is he absolutely better than everyone picked after him?  No, but that is true about almost every player ever drafted.

 

I am only saying that I don’t think Beane is “bad” at drafting.  He may not be the absolute best, but he is not a slouch.

[PBF81]

39 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Of course, they didn’t need to pick a DT at 9 when they took Oliver.  My point is that Oliver is as good as the other players, regardless of position, that we’re picked around that spot.  If your argument is that they should have spent the pick on another position for a roughly equal talent, then I won’t argue that point.  But, to say Oliver isn’t “9th pick good” absent the context of who else was available is just an opinion.

 

Likewise, you’re right, they didn’t have to trade up and they didn’t have to take a LB when they selected Edmunds, but Edmunds does compare well to others picked around that spot.  Is he absolutely better than everyone picked after him?  No, but that is true about almost every player ever drafted.

 

I am only saying that I don’t think Beane is “bad” at drafting.  He may not be the absolute best, but he is not a slouch.

 

My argument is that we should be drafting better overall, that our drafts haven't produced a single impact player on Beane's watch apart from Allen, who carries the entire team.  That's my argument.  Beane gets a whole lot of credit for "turning this franchise around," but I'm not seeing that he's done a better job than his predecessors.  Again, take away Allen and IMO this team is on average worse than it's been over that "Last 20 Years."   We've had some really decent rosters over that 20-year period, just no QB.  Put Allen on them and there's an entirely different perspective.  

 

I've been thinking of how better to illustrate this and I decided to list all of Beane's draft picks (besides Allen) and categorize them.  Here's that list.  When you look at it, ask yourself how this team would perform if Beane's draftees were its primary core.  Because as I see it, it's been Beane's free agents, known quantities, and even there he's wasted a lot of money, that have carried this team, not his draftees, along with preexisting players.  Von Miller, Poyer, Milano, Hyde, White, Morse, other OL-men (and they're not even great either), Diggs.  

 

The starters as listed on TOS as of when I posted this have an asterisk.  Are the drafted starters impressive?  I'm just not seeing that.  I suppose that it's subjective, but if we had to fill in around that with average free agents we would suck.  

 

3 Spencer Brown* 93 OL

5 Tommy Doyle 161 OL

 

2 James Cook 63 RB

3 Devin Singletary* 74 RB (Likely Gone)

 

5 Khalil Shakir 148 WR

4 Gabriel Davis* 128 WR

 

3 Dawson Knox* 96 TE

7 Tommy Sweeney 228 TE

 

1 Ed Oliver* 9 DT

1 Gregory Rousseau* 30 DL

2 A.J. Epenesa 54 DE

2 Boogie Basham 61 DL

 

1 Tremaine Edmunds* 16 ILB (Likely Gone)

3 Terrel Bernard 89 LB

7 Baylon Spector 231 LB

 

1 Kaiir Elam 23 CB

4 Taron Johnson* 121 CB

5 Siran Neal 154 CB

6 Jaquan Johnson 181 CB

6 Christian Benford 185 DB

6 Damar Hamlin 212 DB

7 Dane Jackson* 239 CB

 

6 Tyler Bass 188 K

 

No Longer on the Team

 

5 Jake Fromm 167 QB

 

2 Cody Ford 38 T

5 Wyatt Teller 166 G

6 Luke Tenuta 209 OL

7 Jack Anderson 236 OL

 

3 Zack Moss 86 RB

 

6 Isaiah Hodgins 207 WR

6 Ray-Ray McCloud 187 WR

6 Marquez Stevenson 203 WR

7 Austin Proehl 255 WR

 

3 Harrison Phillips 96 DT

7 Darryl Johnson 225 DE

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by PBF81

[PBF81]

43 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Of course, they didn’t need to pick a DT at 9 when they took Oliver.  My point is that Oliver is as good as the other players, regardless of position, that we’re picked around that spot.  If your argument is that they should have spent the pick on another position for a roughly equal talent, then I won’t argue that point.  But, to say Oliver isn’t “9th pick good” absent the context of who else was available is just an opinion.

 

Likewise, you’re right, they didn’t have to trade up and they didn’t have to take a LB when they selected Edmunds, but Edmunds does compare well to others picked around that spot.  Is he absolutely better than everyone picked after him?  No, but that is true about almost every player ever drafted.

 

I am only saying that I don’t think Beane is “bad” at drafting.  He may not be the absolute best, but he is not a slouch.

 

Imagine Allen on the 2002 8-8 Bills team with Moulds, Price, Reed, Riemersma, Centers, Henry (who had over 1,400 yards) and with the OL of Jennings, Brown, Teague (C), Sullivan, and Mike Williams.  I see a 14-2 team with Allen instead of brick-footed Bledsoe.  

 

We have arguably the worst OL since the pre-Super Bowl years.  

 

And BTW, Singletary's been our best RB and he topped out at 870 Rushing Yards and 7 TDs.  The only other 1,000 Yard receiver we had was Brown before Diggs got here, and that was just barely.  Otherwise Beasley with 967 and 4 TDs in 2020.  After that not a sniff.  

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by PBF81

[OldTimer1960]

9 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Imagine Allen on the 2002 8-8 Bills team with Moulds, Price, Reed, Riemersma, Centers, Henry (who had over 1,400 yards) and with the OL of Jennings, Brown, Teague (C), Sullivan, and Mike Williams.  I see a 14-2 team with Allen instead of brick-footed Bledsoe.  

 

We have arguably the worst OL since the pre-Super Bowl years.  

 

 

No doubt the OL is a weakness.