What Are Some of You Smoking?

[K-9]

(shouting intended) ALWAYS, ALWAYS TAKE THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE!!! EVERY PICK FOR NEED IS A REACH IF THAT PLAYER ISN'T ALSO THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE AT THE TIME!

 

Teams need FOOTBALL PLAYERS! It's that simple. If Davis is the best player there, take him. If it's Hawk, take him. If it's Huff, take him. And so on. Regardless if the current position on the team is held by an All Pro.

 

Lets act like we've been there before people.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Like A Mofo]

TD, is that you?

[stuckincincy]

I smoke Winston Lights.

[obie_wan]

I smoke Winston Lights.

653134[/snapback]

are those Eric Winston Lights or Winston Justice Lights?

[FTW_BillsFan]

TD, is that you?

653129[/snapback]

 

I think it's Marv. He's telling us he has no plan for draft day and will draft the best player available.

[IndyJay1234]

(shouting intended) ALWAYS, ALWAYS TAKE THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE!!! EVERY PICK FOR NEED IS A REACH IF THAT PLAYER ISN'T ALSO THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE AT THE TIME!

 

Teams need FOOTBALL PLAYERS! It's that simple. If Davis is the best player there, take him. If it's Hawk, take him. If it's Huff, take him. And so on. Regardless if the current position on the team is held by an All Pro.

 

Lets act like we've been there before people.

 

GO BILLS!!!

653128[/snapback]

 

Lets go Lions Let go!

[eSJayDee]

No, I've gotta disagree w/ that.

I will concede that you never know when or if injuries will occur so that the person you projected as a 2nd string will become a starter & have the opportunity for significant contributions, what you want to maximize is the UTILITY (an economic concept) of each player, that is, take the player w/ the highest utility.

Let's ignore the issue of the accuracy of your assessment abilities & assume you can realistically determine a players future ABILITY to contribute. Bear in mind, if he's stuck on the bench, he's not contributing much.

When you evaluate players, you take into consideration their liklihood of increasing the teams overal ability by a certain amount relative to other options.

Take for example in our case weighing a certain good but not pro-bowl caliber OG relative to the 2nd coming of Ray Guy. (For those who don't know, likely the best punter of all time w/ deference to Sammy Baugh as he was well b4 my time.)

We already have one of the best punters in the league and we have every reason to think he will continue to excel. Replacing him w/ someone better will improve the team, but not as much as upgrading our horrible interior line play.

Assume you have the equivalent of Brady & Peyton Manning on your team. Would it make much sense to draft another top notch QB who almost certainly will rot on the bench for several years?

If you have a need at G but there's no good candidates available but a few excellent players where you don't have a need, do you reach for the G? Not likely.

You also have to take into consideration what other players will be available when you draft later. If you have 5 G all ranked roughly the same, but there's a player at a much thinner position that you want, you take him, figuring that you'll likely be able to fill the G need later in the draft almost as well as now, but you won't have that luxury at that much thinner position.

Basically, your decision matrix is multi-dimensional, taking not only 'best available athlete', but also need. (Along w/ other factors such as character.)

[K-9]

No, I've gotta disagree w/ that.

I will concede that you never know when or if injuries will occur so that the person you projected as a 2nd string will become a starter & have the opportunity for significant contributions, what you want to maximize is the UTILITY (an economic concept) of each player, that is, take the player w/ the highest utility.

Let's ignore the issue of the accuracy of your assessment abilities & assume you can realistically determine a players future ABILITY to contribute.  Bear in mind, if he's stuck on the bench, he's not contributing much.

When you evaluate players, you take into consideration their liklihood of increasing the teams overal ability by a certain amount relative to other options.

Take for example in our case weighing a certain good but not pro-bowl caliber OG relative to the 2nd coming of Ray Guy. (For those who don't know, likely the best punter of all time w/ deference to Sammy Baugh as he was well b4 my time.)

We already have one of the best punters in the league and we have every reason to think he will continue to excel.  Replacing him w/ someone better will improve the team, but not as much as upgrading our horrible interior line play.

Assume you have the equivalent of Brady & Peyton Manning on your team.  Would it make much sense to draft another top notch QB who almost certainly will rot on the bench for several years?

If you have a need at G but there's no good candidates available but a few excellent players where you don't have a need, do you reach for the G?  Not likely.

You also have to take into consideration what other players will be available when you draft later.  If you have 5 G all ranked roughly the same, but there's a player at a much thinner position that you want, you take him, figuring that you'll likely be able to fill the G need later in the draft almost as well as now, but you won't have that luxury at that much thinner position.

Basically, your decision matrix is multi-dimensional, taking not only 'best available athlete', but also need.  (Along w/ other factors such as character.)

653166[/snapback]

 

Good points, all. Except your reference to the punter position; that's a bit ludicrous. We're talking positional players here. I should have made it clearer. EVERY player, ranked higher or lower going in, has a 50/50 chance of succeeding at the next level. It's a crapshoot. And I agree character is a part of the equation, all things being equal. However, football temperment is more vital.

 

I don't mean best available 'athlete.' I mean best available FOOTBALL player. There's a huge difference. Can you say Mike Mamula?

 

When you are a rebuilding team like ours, in dire need of good players just about everywhere, you have to take the best player, regardless of need. Better football players have a tendendy to make those around them better as well. Focusing solely on need narrows your scope to such an extent that you don't even see the better players available. History bares me out on this.

 

Lets say G is our greatest 'need.' If the highest rated G in the history of the draft is there along with the highest rated player (lets say Bush for our argument) whom do you draft an why?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[eSJayDee]

re: K-9s response to me.

 

I merely used the punter example as I think he's indisputably among the best at his position. (We can't say that about too many other positions on our team .) However, what makes punter different than a 'positional' player? His contributions certainly are significant. For that matter, the Radiers took Guy in the 1st round & I'd be willing to bet that there's very few, if any players that were available after him in the draft that you'd rather take in hindsight. Perhaps the next best example for us would be CB, although it certainly is true that having 3 quality CBs is highly desirable.

 

re: Best ATHLETE vs FOOTBALL PLAYER. I agree w/ you on this, I was just using the often used phrase 'best available athlete'.

 

W/ respect to your Bush vs awesome G query, again there are MANY factors to be weighed, but I'd assume the prudent choice is the G. Let's assume that Bush is really that great (which, IMHO is open to debate), or at least more importantly, expected to be. The primary reason for choosing the G is that that we already have a fairly good RB and also that it appears that decent RBs are easier to come by than decent Gs (i.e. if McGahee gets injured or fails to perform up to expectations). IMO, the vast improvement that our offense would reap by replacing our mediocre at best Gs would far exceed the marginal improvement we would see from the slight improvement of Bush vs McGahee.

[mead107]

i like watching people blow smoke out their ass . in marv i trust to do the right thing .

[Buffalo_Stampede]

(shouting intended) ALWAYS, ALWAYS TAKE THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE!!! EVERY PICK FOR NEED IS A REACH IF THAT PLAYER ISN'T ALSO THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE AT THE TIME!

 

Teams need FOOTBALL PLAYERS! It's that simple. If Davis is the best player there, take him. If it's Hawk, take him. If it's Huff, take him. And so on. Regardless if the current position on the team is held by an All Pro.

 

Lets act like we've been there before people.

 

GO BILLS!!!

653128[/snapback]

 

Your 95% right. If you have a good young player, under 30, then you dont want to draft another player there. But I agree, especially in the 1st round and in the top 10, you have to get a star. It just so happens that most teams drafting in the top 10 have many holes, so you should be able to fill a hole and draft a potential star player that is the best available. That player in my opinion is Michael Huff.

[K-9]

re: K-9s response to me.

 

I merely used the punter example as I think he's indisputably among the best at his position.  (We can't say that about too many other positions on our team  .)  However, what makes punter different than a 'positional' player?  His contributions certainly are significant.  For that matter, the Radiers took Guy in the 1st round & I'd be willing to bet that there's very few, if any players that were available after him in the draft that you'd rather take in hindsight.  Perhaps the next best example for us would be CB, although it certainly is true that having 3 quality CBs is highly desirable.

 

re: Best ATHLETE vs FOOTBALL PLAYER.  I agree w/ you on this, I was just using the often used phrase 'best available athlete'.

 

W/ respect to your Bush vs awesome G query, again there are MANY factors to be weighed, but I'd assume the prudent choice is the G.  Let's assume that Bush is really that great (which, IMHO is open to debate), or at least more importantly, expected to be. The primary reason for choosing the G is that that we already have a fairly good RB and also that it appears that decent RBs are easier to come by than decent Gs (i.e. if McGahee gets injured or fails to perform up to expectations).  IMO, the vast improvement that our offense would reap by replacing our mediocre at best Gs would far exceed the marginal improvement we would see from the slight improvement of Bush vs McGahee.

653257[/snapback]

 

I remember Guy quite well. He was a weapon, no doubt and the best of all time (again w/ respect to Slingin' Sammy B). But a punter, IMHO, can't be in the discussion because he's simply not on the field often enough to be a regular potential game changing force. That's how they differ from positonal players.

 

I also agree that decent (read SERVICEABLE) RBs are easy to find. So are Gs. But game changing-can score from anywhere on the field, running, catching or returning players are NOT easy to find. With all due respect to Willis, you take that player because they RARELY come around. Same thing with a QB, DE, DB, LB, or WR. You can't afford to pass them up.

 

But, if you have a G rated a better PLAYER than anyone else on the board at the time, then by all means, grab 'em.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

i like watching people blow smoke out their ass . in marv i trust to do the right thing .

653264[/snapback]

 

Really. How close do you like to get? Do you prefer smoke rings? Different colors? A rainbow perhaps? We try to accomodate.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Tasker]

I completley agree with the best football player logic. This should account for 90% or so of the decision. It can be impacted somewhat by need (O-Line) lack of need (Starting RB) or silliness (Punter), but you have to get the best help you can out of the draft. Needs change too fast to have positional advnatages coverup for inferior talent.

 

When things are really close (since talent appraisal is not an exact science) you can lean towards need, but only when it is a coin flip. Hawk is appraised at being a better football player than Ngata. If we have both available we pick Hawk, even though we need DT more than LB right now. And when we are making a super bowl run in four years we will thank ourselves for it.

 

If you really really don't think you need the best player available, that is a situation to trade down, not to reach for an inferior player with the same pick.

[2003Contenders]

As the old saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat...

 

The Patriots have had a lot of success, for example, in recent years by targeting specific players that they want to draft. Then they are willing to "reach" at times to select such players. The point is that they have done their homework and feel that the players(s) will fit well into their system, even though the player's "value" may be lesser to other teams.

 

During his Dallas days Jimmy Johnson did well by using his point value system and sticking very closely to it to draft the best available players, regardless of position. Because he had SO many picks -- and high ones at that -- this particular system worked well for him. Once he moved onto to Miami he stuck with this point system -- but he started obsessing over need positions rather than best athlete available. Remember the number of RB misses he scored in the draft?

 

It's all really a crapshoot. You never know how good or bad someone is going to be coming out of college. Remember in 1998 when many scouts thought that Manning was a "system" QB, while Leaf was someone you could actually build a team around? Indeed, Leaf did have better measurable tools, but he was missing the heart and brains.

 

No matter what happens, we have to trust our scouts to do a good job of rating the prospects. Looking back at TD's career in Buffalo, I do not think it is pure coincidence that his first draft was the best. With the team pretty much torn apart that off-season, we had needs almost everywhere. Thus, he could afford to draft the best player available with each pick -- and he had the good sense to trade down a couple times to get more bang for the buck. I'd like to see Marv use that draft as the model. There are valid arguments to take any number of guys at #8, depending on who is there... Davis, Huff, Ngata, Winston, Bunkley... We can use ANY of them. It is up to the scouts to correctly identify which one best suits our needs... And with so many needs, if we have the opportunity to trade down and pick up, say, another 2nd round pick, that is a wise decision, provided that we don't trade down too far and risk losing a REALLY good player.

[FTW_BillsFan]

I completley agree with the best football player logic.  This should account for 90% or so of the decision.  It can be impacted somewhat by need (O-Line) lack of need (Starting RB) or silliness (Punter), but you have to get the best help you can out of the draft.  Needs change too fast to have positional advnatages coverup for inferior talent.

 

When things are really close (since talent appraisal is not an exact science) you can lean towards need, but only when it is a coin flip.  Hawk is appraised at being a better football player than Ngata.  If we have both available we pick Hawk, even though we need DT more than LB right now.  And when we are making a super bowl run in four years we will thank ourselves for it.

 

If you really really don't think you need the best player available, that is a situation to trade down, not to reach for an inferior player with the same pick.

653313[/snapback]

 

I think we are one yr. away from both Fletcher and Posey being free agents. LB is a need.

[FTW_BillsFan]

I remember Guy quite well. He was a weapon, no doubt and the best of all time (again w/ respect to Slingin' Sammy B). But a punter, IMHO, can't be in the discussion because he's simply not on the field often enough to be a regular potential game changing force. That's how they differ from positonal players.

 

I also agree that decent (read SERVICEABLE) RBs are easy to find. So are Gs. But game changing-can score from anywhere on the field, running, catching or returning players are NOT easy to find. With all due respect to Willis, you take that player because they RARELY come around. Same thing with a QB, DE, DB, LB, or WR. You can't afford to pass them up.

 

But, if you have a G rated a better PLAYER than anyone else on the board at the time, then by all means, grab 'em.

 

GO BILLS!!!

653285[/snapback]

 

Do you also feel that field goal kicker is not apart of the discussion? I think people underestimate the importance of special teams. We are lucky to have Moorman. I wonder how many more points we would have given up if our special teams weren't #1.

 

Punters can pin other teams close to the goal line or kick a boomer from your own end zone and totally change the complexion of the game.

 

Now, I'm not saying that we should be looking for a kicker/punter at #8, but whenever you can get the best available, then maybe you should go for it. Unless you are set in that position, ie. buffalo w/ Moorman.

[Bob in STL]

(shouting intended) ALWAYS, ALWAYS TAKE THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE!!! EVERY PICK FOR NEED IS A REACH IF THAT PLAYER ISN'T ALSO THE BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE AT THE TIME!

 

Teams need FOOTBALL PLAYERS! It's that simple. If Davis is the best player there, take him. If it's Hawk, take him. If it's Huff, take him. And so on. Regardless if the current position on the team is held by an All Pro.

 

Lets act like we've been there before people.

 

GO BILLS!!!

653128[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, that's why Detriot keeps drafting wide receievers.