Teams drafting top 15 WRs or CBs since 2000

[obie_wan]

Where will these first round linebackers and DLs play? They aren't starting most likely. A first round pick this high shouldn't take long to start.

 

a playmaking LB would put Crowell on the bench as a capable backup - which is where he belongs

[Dawgg]

Sorry, but you're making no sense at all. It makes absolutely no difference that those players were acquired through free agency, they were former first round WRs. What's you argument regarding the Colts first round WRs?

 

Am I the only one who thinks this thread is very bizarre?

 

Let me explain it for you.

 

The Giants didn't waste any of THEIR high first-rounder on a WR. They spent their first rounders fortifying other positions, and managed to get their #1 receiver in free agency. Same goes for the Patriots.

 

The point is, WR is a position that's relatively easy to strengthen outside the draft. Other positions aren't.

 

Your reasoning is very convoluted as to why the Bills should go OL/DL in the first and not take a WR which is the obvious, most intelligent and only choice.

 

At least you and Matt Millen agree.

[Fingon]

Let me explain it for you.

 

The Giants didn't waste any of THEIR high first-rounder on a WR. They spent their first rounders fortifying other positions, and managed to get their #1 receiver in free agency. Same goes for the Patriots.

 

The point is, WR is a position that's relatively easy to strengthen outside the draft. Other positions aren't.

At least you and Matt Millen agree.

Matt Millen drafts WR's when he already has multiple first round WR's on his team. The difference is that the Bills do not have any good WR's outside Evans, the Bills also fortified their OL/DL/LB's already.

[Fingon]

There is a gigantic difference between drafting a 1st round WR to compliment your #1, and drafting a WR when you have already spent 5-6 high picks on one.

[AKC]

AKC, can i ask you why you convienently left the Jags out of your study?

 

In 2001-2, they took 2 DTs in round 1. (1 of them is now with the Bills) But since then, they have taken QB-WR-WR-TE-FS. Obviously they have spent 4 picks in the past 4 years on pass catchers and DBs, yet they continually are in the playoff hunt or making playoff appearances.

 

While i agree with your overall premise that the bills need ot spend more early round draft resources on both lines, it is foolish at best to reduce the argument down to "drafting WRs/DBs in round 1 makes your team lose and drafting OL/DL in round 1 makes your team win"

 

I had them in my orginal title- somewhere in editing they were lost. In the frame I used (first 15 picks), they do have a record over that span of 4 picks, including 2DTs and a WR. Note that I also showed the other teams who had made the same picks, even where they were Playoff teams.

 

I'm in no way saying there's a hard, fast rule about NEVER taking a Wideout or Corner up high in the draft, in fact if we played a traditional D it might make sense to look at CB this year. Not with a Cover 2 though- it'd be irresponsible to put #11 money into a Corner since we're playing in a Cover 2. At the same time, Wideouts clearly can be had in other ways- and there IS a clear trend for the better teams to focus more with top of the draft picks on "other than" WRs, while at the same time the teams who treat the draft like Fantasy Football managers (Lions, Bills, etc.) get caught up in the love of ball touchers. I'm just hoping that, since for the first time in 4 years we COULD make a big step forward defensively, that we actually do it if the opportunity presents itself. As much as it will cause waves of our Message Board bretheren to stampede the ocean cliff, it is the way to build a team. The evidence looks very clear to me- the vast majority of the teams who play well year after year STARTED their runs with high round DT picks, and for the most part premium DTs. We have an old one now, and possibly an up and coming, but the good rosters in the league aren't stopping at 4 of mixed quality DTs- they're at least at 5 and in many cases 6 with a solid dose of premium talent there.

 

the original premise of the thread was not using high draft picks on WRs...but then you said this:

At this point, you went beyond the thread's original intention...this sentence is purely about the money tied up in the WR position.

 

Even if we do draft a WR at #11, you can't make the claim we'd be paying our WRs as a group significantly more than last year's Pats* with Moss/Stallworth/Welker, or the Colts with Harrison/Wayne/Gonzales. BlueFire pointed this out, and you chose to go back and claim that sentence was about not wasting high picks on recieivers, when it was actually about not wasting big money on recievers.

 

You would have been better served simply admitting you took the concept too far, and that the statement was wrong.

 

The arrogant tone you take turns people off to your theories as much as, and maybe more than, your arguments do. Its okay to admit you're not infallible. None of us are.

 

As I've pointed out, there's a difference between the financial commitment made to a #11 WR in the draft versus the commitment made to the FA WR. The draft is where the foundation of the team is built, which is why smart teams tie up a lot of their early draft commitment in their lines versus with easily interchangeable players like WRs available every year in FA, and with more management options availble to handle the financial commitment. That #11 WR is going to eat a nice chuck of cap space for the coming 5 seasons- whether or not he pans out to be a good player. The FA, who the league has already got a book of league film on him, has a contract the team can likely move with only an extra year of pain.

 

I'm all broken up that you don't approve of my demeanor; maybe you'll find one of the Hamden threads more to your satisfaction. If you want to begin threads in here to stimulate football conversation, you'd hope that the responses will have a little more depth than "That can't be right". I'm not in the habit of promoting contribututions from the "that can't be right" crowd.

 

So they're a bad example for your argument when you look at them in their entirety instead of cherrypicking a couple of years.

 

Just because I give out a great map doesn't mean everyone will arrive at the destination. But clearly following the rule of using early picks on DL has been an incredibly frutiful strategy for most of the top teams in the NFL today.

 

Why did I "cherry pick" the last 7 NFL draft classes? If you really have to ask Dave; I didn't figure the draft classes of the 1950s would offer as much evidence about today's game ;-)

[1billsfan]

Let me explain it for you.

 

The Giants didn't waste any of THEIR high first-rounder on a WR. They spent their first rounders fortifying other positions, and managed to get their #1 receiver in free agency. Same goes for the Patriots.

 

The point is, WR is a position that's relatively easy to strengthen outside the draft. Other positions aren't.

At least you and Matt Millen agree.

 

When you're a team like Buffalo it is not easy to fill the WR outside of the draft. That's because free agent wide receivers like Burress, Moss and Owens simply aren't interested in coming here. Maybe if the Bills get good again they will be able to attract the big names.

 

As for the the Giants, Osi Umenyiora and Justin Tuck weren't first round draft picks yet were the most valuable players on that defense. Taking it further...Allen DB, Shockey TE, Joseph DT, Manning QB, Webster DB (2nd rd, no first rd pick), Kiwanuka LB, Ross DB were all the first picks of the Giants' drafts since 2001. Exactly where are these dominating DL/OL players that they drafted in the first round again? You can't make blanket statements about who the Bills must pick first based on other teams like the Giants. The Bills are in no position to draft backup DL or OL when their offense was the worst in their entire history in 2007 because they had zero threats at WR beyond Lee Evans. It had a major negative effect on Edwards, Lynch and Evans' effectiveness and is the reason why they never got it in gear.

 

So suggesting the Bills take a WR in the first round for the first time since 2004 is somehow equivalent to Matt Millon's multiple WR drafts? The Lee Evans pick was four years ago, talk about a reach.

[dave mcbride]

Just because I give out a great map doesn't mean everyone will arrive at the destination. But clearly following the rule of using early picks on DL has been an incredibly frutiful strategy for most of the top teams in the NFL today.

 

Why did I "cherry pick" the last 7 NFL draft classes? If you really have to ask Dave; I didn't figure the draft classes of the 1950s would offer as much evidence about today's game ;-)

The game has changed very little between 1997 and now. Re: the Jets, though, a sea change occurred with the arrival of Parcells in 1997, and a lot of the scouts and staff who worked for the Jets when he was there remained after he left in 2000 (1999 was his final year coaching). So while the overall culture of the Jets changed after 2000, it really wasn't a total shift. That's why it's best to look at the longer sweep, at least when it comes to the Jets.

[Bill from NYC]

The game has changed very little between 1997 and now. Re: the Jets, though, a sea change occurred with the arrival of Parcells in 1997, and a lot of the scouts and staff who worked for the Jets when he was there remained after he left in 2000 (1999 was his final year coaching). So while the overall culture of the Jets changed after 2000, it really wasn't a total shift. That's why it's best to look at the longer sweep, at least when it comes to the Jets.

 

Sorry dave, but that is way off. Are you really going to compare a sub-par coach like Herm Edwards to Parcells? Now, they have one of the youngest coaches in the league.

 

Nah.....when Parcells left, things changed.

[dave mcbride]

Sorry dave, but that is way off. Are you really going to compare a sub-par coach like Herm Edwards to Parcells? Now, they have one of the youngest coaches in the league.

 

Nah.....when Parcells left, things changed.

 

Bill:

 

I never said a word about coaching. I talked about drafting strategy, which has remained very similar. But since you brought it up: As for the coaching talent (or lack thereof) of Herm, I live in NY and get to hear all the yahoos denigrating him ad infinitum. Is he great? No. But has he led his team to the playoffs 4 times in seven years despite ho-hum talent overall? Yes. Did his Jets team beat the Colts 41-0 in the playoffs in 2001? Did his KC team have a great defensive gameplan against eventual Super Bowl champ Indy at Indy last year in the playoffs? Did they beat the Chargers on the road in the playoffs in 2004? Would they have beaten a 15-1 Pitt team on the road in the playoffs had Doug Brien made a relatively easy field goal? Yes to all of the above.

 

When was the last time the Bills made the playoffs again?

[AKC]

The game has changed very little between 1997 and now. Re: the Jets, though, a sea change occurred with the arrival of Parcells in 1997, and a lot of the scouts and staff who worked for the Jets when he was there remained after he left in 2000 (1999 was his final year coaching). So while the overall culture of the Jets changed after 2000, it really wasn't a total shift. That's why it's best to look at the longer sweep, at least when it comes to the Jets.

 

The average NFL player career is 3.5 seasons. I doubled that and included every team in the NFL.

 

You appear to feel there's a benefit in exanding the years beyond 7- but to focus on only one team would be an error IMO. To focus on trends, you have to look at the league overall. I think 7 years of the more succesful teams clearly favoring using their opportunities in the top half of the first round on DL does offer some insight, and adding a few more years won't change the numbers in any dramatic fashion.

[dave mcbride]

The average NFL player career is 3.5 seasons. I doubled that and included every team in the NFL.

 

You appear to feel there's a benefit in exanding the years beyond 7- but to focus on only one team would be an error IMO. To focus on trends, you have to look at the league overall. I think 7 years of the more succesful teams clearly favoring using top half of any top half of the first round on DL does offer some insight, and adding a few more years won't change the numbers in any dramatic fashion.

 

I'm not making an argument about general trends; I'm just pointing out that you were a bit unfair to the Jets, who don't really fit your model.

[Steely Dan]

I think it is very easy to point to teams that have had a lot of success and say here's what they did, this is what we should do. Maybe that's true, but they also don't have as many needs. The Patriots have had ten or more draft picks every year for the last six years. They build depth through the draft and have gotten their top offensive players, sans Tom Brady, mostly through free agency. The same goes for the Ravens.

 

Looking historically, the last few years have not produced many top receivers who have done well statistically and it's easy to point to Detroit. However, I live in Detroit, and read the papers every day. The problem with Charles Roger and Mike Williams, wasn't that they didn't pan out. It had more to do with the fact that they weren't nearly as good as people thought they were. Mike Williams left college too early, had a year off and wasn't in shape. Rogers had no work ethic and once he had his big contract with its incentives he quit. Not to mention, there was no other players on that team who could do anything. Harrington was absolutely terrible and Kevin Jones was just cut because he wasn't really a number one back in the NFL. The Lions are not the best example to look to when evaluating whether or not receivers picked in the top-10 are actually going to pan out. That being said, Charles Johnson has the makings of a super star.

 

Since we're looking at history, however, I think looking at the history of the Bills in picking first round receiver talent is perhaps the best indicator of how a receiver drafted by the Bills in the first round might pan out. Buffalo has drafted a number of receivers in the first round of the NFL draft. Jerry Butler was, I believe a first round pick and he played very well for the Bills during the Ferguson years. Buffalo also drafted Eric Moulds in the first round. He turned out to be pretty darn good. Peerless Price was also a first round selection. He had shown signs of being exceptional, but then fizzled. Not such a stellar pick. Technically, Roscoe Parrish was our "first" selection a few years ago, when we took him in the second round. He hasn't really played enough to judge whether he will be good or not, though he did start to show some flashes last year. I think the jury is still out on Parrish. We also drafted Andre Reed, though I don't believe he was our first round pick. I believe he was taken in the second round of the 86 draft after Buffalo had taken Bruce Smith. That choice turned out rather well I think.

 

Overall, Buffalo has had a mixed result with first round receivers. I think this year's crop is a bit overrated in a number of ways talent wise, but there are a few steals. I believe James Hardy or Devin Thomas, or both, are a bit underrated and are perhaps the best receivers in the draft. Manningham is also very good, though I don't think the Bills will take him due to the fact that he is basically a Lee Evans clone and is under 6 feet tall. Buffalo NEEDS another wide receiver. We would like to have more depth and talent at a number of position, but there are now two desperate positions of need. WR and TE. One might also include C in that classification of need. As a result, I believe the Bills will draft as follows.

 

Trade Down with Dallas who will desperately want Mendenhall at number 11 for their two first rounders at 22 and 28.

 

1a. Devin Thomas WR

1b. Fred Davis TE

2. James Hardy WR

3. Mike Pollack C

4. Owen Schmidt FB

5. D-Line

6. CB

7a. Matt Spanos C

7b. O-Line

 

It is possible that Buffalo could take another CB in round 2 and draft Jordy Nelson WR from KSU in the fifth round. I wouldn't be shocked, but Buffalo IS going to draft two WRs during the draft. If they take Devin Thomas or Malcolm Kelly in the first round, the offense will become instantly better. Evans will have pressure taken off of him by mid-season when the new rookie is making an impact on offense and helping us move the chains. It also allows Reed to play his natural and best position in the slot and gives us a strong fourth option in Parrish who could become Buffalo's Wes Welker. This just makes sense. Adding a TE will only make the O that much better with a fifth passing threat who can open the middle and draw safties out of double coverage on Evans. Taking D-Line, doesn't provide us with nearly the benefit of a WR or a TE. Sorry, but I think you're just wrong on this one.

 

Jerry Butler - 1st Round 1979 #5 overall after taking Tom Cousinart first over all.

Lee Evans - 1st Round 2004 #13 overall.

Eric Moulds - 1st Round 1996 # 24 overall.

Josh Reed - 2nd Round 2002 #36 overall.

Peerless Price - 2nd Round 1999 #53 overall.

Roscoe Parrish - 2nd Round 2005 #55 overall.

Andre Reed - 4th Round 1985 #86 overall. (Steal of the century for Buffalo!)

 

BTW, when Bruce and Andre are enshrined in the HOF they will have been part of a very few drafts that snagged two HOF's.

 

It seems obvious that a bad team that tries to build from the outside in is going to have some issues, especially, if their interior is filled with the soft and creamy Oreo cookie filling. On offense, if the QB has no time to throw or is getting injured, it doesn't matter if Holt and Bruce are on the outside. On defense, it doesn't matter if you got Deion and Deion Jr. if other teams can gash you up the gut for 8 yards a carry.

 

The good news is that the Bills have actually woken up in the last year and spent some attention and money on their lines. I don't think their work is complete, myself. But, at least it is a step in the right direction and better than playing ostrich and using draft day as a publicity stunt.

 

Damn you!! (shaking fist) Now I'm jonesing for Oreos!!!

[Dawgg]

So suggesting the Bills take a WR in the first round for the first time since 2004 is somehow equivalent to Matt Millon's multiple WR drafts? The Lee Evans pick was four years ago, talk about a reach.

 

The Bills devoted a second rounder in 2002, a first rounder in 2003, and another second rounder in 2005 -- all to the WR position. Look where that's gotten us. NOWHERE. WR is the last piece of a puzzle that's far from being complete.

 

This team is woefully thin on the offensive line (one injury and it's back to square zero).

This team lacks playmakers in the secondary... they play hard, but they're simply not good enough.

The pass rush can use improvement -- DRAMATIC improvement.

 

There are plenty of needs that would be better to address in round one, unless of course the WR is truly a rare talent, the type that can take over a game.

[Bill from NYC]

Bill:

 

I never said a word about coaching. I talked about drafting strategy, which has remained very similar. But since you brought it up: As for the coaching talent (or lack thereof) of Herm, I live in NY and get to hear all the yahoos denigrating him ad infinitum. Is he great? No. But has he led his team to the playoffs 4 times in seven years despite ho-hum talent overall? Yes. Did his Jets team beat the Colts 41-0 in the playoffs in 2001? Did his KC team have a great defensive gameplan against eventual Super Bowl champ Indy at Indy last year in the playoffs? Did they beat the Chargers on the road in the playoffs in 2004? Would they have beaten a 15-1 Pitt team on the road in the playoffs had Doug Brien made a relatively easy field goal? Yes to all of the above.

 

When was the last time the Bills made the playoffs again?

 

Yahoos? Am I a "yahoo?" Holy schitt, that's a first.

 

Parcells left this moron with a ton of talent. He destroyed the team, and I thank him for this. How is Herm doing in KC? Never mind, I'll answer....he will soon be fired.

 

Herm Edwards is a nice man who cannot coach.

[AKC]

There are plenty of needs that would be better to address in round one, unless of course the WR is truly a rare talent, the type that can take over a game.

 

I was thinking about how the use of a first for Lynch made perfect sense- a position where most guys have done their heavy lifting by their 6th or 7th season, and you get to have a majority of their best years with that big rookie contract. They also are stepping off the bus and walking right into a starting role. At WR, so few are able to do anything like this- the role is just too much to jump right into. TE and WR are difficult commitments that early, unless, as you've pointed out, your team is flush across both lines and you have have no obvious hole.

 

I'm amazed that the link between specific positions and the cap ramifications of a #11 pick don't click with most fans. I get the feeling most fans recognize that we don't need a top 5 Corner playing our D, yet there's still a lot of chatter about the position as an option this draft. I think putting #11 money into a corner this year, in our situation, would suppress our growth for at least a few years. Now, as some wise old hands at this have pointed out in other posts, we could have a whole new coaching staff in here in 2009 who might throw the Cover 2 out, and that corner might then become a good use of #11 money- but for the place we are and hoping to compete in 2008, Corner does not seem responsible to me.

 

On the WR side one conclusion that seems fair is that if your guy does turn over the course of his rookie contract to be a keeper, there's a good chance he'll be "kept" by another team via FA. You get to pay for him to learn to play in the Bigs, then he bolts to a team with better upside or some monster contract we're not inclined to match.

[Ramius]

I was thinking about how the use of a first for Lynch made perfect sense- a position where most guys have done their heavy lifting by their 6th or 7th season, and you get to have a majority of their best years with that big rookie contract. They also are stepping off the bus and walking right into a starting role. At WR, so few are able to do anything like this- the role is just too much to jump right into. TE and WR are difficult commitments that early, unless, as you've pointed out, your team is flush across both lines and you have have no obvious hole.

 

I'm amazed that the link between specific positions and the cap ramifications of a #11 pick don't click with most fans. I get the feeling most fans recognize that we don't need a top 5 Corner playing our D, yet there's still a lot of chatter about the position as an option this draft. I think putting #11 money into a corner this year, in our situation, would suppress our growth for at least a few years. Now, as some wise old hands at this have pointed out in other posts, we could have a whole new coaching staff in here in 2009 who might throw the Cover 2 out, and that corner might then become a good use of #11 money- but for the place we are and hoping to compete in 2008, Corner does not seem responsible to me.

 

On the WR side one conclusion that seems fair is that if your guy does turn over the course of his rookie contract to be a keeper, there's a good chance he'll be "kept" by another team via FA. You get to pay for him to learn to play in the Bigs, then he bolts to a team with better upside or some monster contract we're not inclined to match.

 

There are no cap ramifications of the #11 pick, because judging by past years, that pick is going to get in the range of 5 years and 15-20 million.

 

The problem with the bills is not that the team doesnt use first round picks on the lines. The problem has been the lack of use of 1st-3rd round picks on the lines.

[BuffaloBilliever]

a playmaking LB would put Crowell on the bench as a capable backup - which is where he belongs

 

... Really?

[AKC]

There are no cap ramifications of the #11 pick, because judging by past years, that pick is going to get in the range of 5 years and 15-20 million.

 

The problem with the bills is not that the team doesnt use first round picks on the lines. The problem has been the lack of use of 1st-3rd round picks on the lines.

 

True, that term is not the best to describe the cost of the 11 pick-

 

Lynch at 12 last year got I think 19 mill with 11 guaranteed? If that's close, the thing is that we've got a commitment to that money and player for the next 5 years. Even if Lynch had turned out to be Lawrence Phillips, you're not cutting someone you just paid 11 mill in guaranteed money to. That guaranteed money is counted against the team cap for the life of the contract unless he's cut, and then it's accelerated into the current/next seasons- no?

[Dibs]

......Plus, the likelyhood of being a bust is too high.......

I think this is a very important point. I have not done a full study of bust percentages however upon looking at DT recently I noticed that(what appeared to me) a larger than normal number chosen in the first round panned out.....it usually took a few years or so but the percentage was high. QB for instance has an extremely small percentage of success when drafting in the first round(not #1)......this I have crunched the numbers on. From impressions(again) it seems to me that TE, WR, RB & DE have a fairly bad track record in the bust percentages.

I have also noticed that there seems to be a higher percent of good WR, CB, LB & to a lesser extent RB that hit the FA market.....a lot of teams obviously feel that those positions are either more easily replaceable or perhaps they feel the extra money involved in paying them does not outweigh the 'extra' they bring to the table over a lesser player of the same position.

Does this factor into how (good)teams draft? Perhaps.

 

It is not so much important which position is drafted where......but more so that whichever position that is drafted needs to succeed. A team gets nowhere drafting DT after DT if every guy they draft busts out.

 

When looking at drafting trends it is obvious that there is generally no easy 'rule' to deduce. Teams will draft generally for need. If a good team has 3 top DTs, they won't draft another simply because they have one available in the draft unless they can foresee those players moving on or declining soon......this goes pretty much for every position.

[dave mcbride]

Yahoos? Am I a "yahoo?" Holy schitt, that's a first.

 

Parcells left this moron with a ton of talent. He destroyed the team, and I thank him for this. How is Herm doing in KC? Never mind, I'll answer....he will soon be fired.

 

Herm Edwards is a nice man who cannot coach.

He took over an 8-8 team in NY. 4 playoff teams in 7 years.