Ok, I went back 5 drafts to try and gauge the importance

[port allegany]

Those numbers are quite interesting. WR is a very volatile pick - very risky but big upside if you get it right as the good ones last a long while. Given those numbers I say we have to get 1st round quality for the position. If you can trade down in the first round fine. If not, reach. I don't buy the 'look how great _______ is and he lasted until the 5th round' theory. The team that drafted ______ was lucky. If they knew the guy was going to be great they'd drafted him much earlier. A some level this draft is a crap shoot with a little odds in the favor of research. But it is not a science. So if our #1 is WR then pick one high (me, I like Kelly because everyone says he's a great blocker. That's a skill that doesn't go away and it is very hard to learn because it is one of the 'wanna' skills. If you don't 'wanna' do it, you don't really have to.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaaaah! I HATE this logic. We need a WR2. We don't have one on the roster, there are no competent ones in free agency. The way the cards fell, we have a NEED and it's a big one.

 

 

Out of 43 1st round WR, a whopping 32 of them meet or exceed Josh's performance with only 11 busts. Of course I'd be mighty disappointed to just match JR's performance with a first round pick. (although JR was near the top of the 2nd round). using 750 yards as my criteria (higher than above), I get (CJ,DB,SH,BE,LF,RW,LE,AJ,SM,RW,PB,TH,DB,RM) 14 winners plus a few that I'd also add such as AG (rookie with a solid 576 yards) Donte Stallworth averaging over 700+yards, and Koren Robinson as he was good until alcoholism destroyed him. Other rookies have a chance to step up in the years to come. so that brings me to about 17 for a 1 in 3 for a real good receiver.

 

So in summary, a 1st round receiver gives 75% chance of getting a useful NFL quality receiver, and a 1 in 3 chance of a bona fide starter. A 3rd round has around a 1 in 6 chance of being useful. Since we NEED a receiver, we should draft one early, and get our pick of the litter. Even if it's a slight "reach".

[Tortured Soul]

Tipsy, I think where I disagree with you is your idea of a "significant" contribution. Last year, Bills WRs not named Evans combined for 1 touchdown. So, I think adding a rookie WR who could score 5 TDs, in my mind, would be a very significant contribution. I compared it to a "significant" contribution from rookie DEs - 5 sacks. Here are the numbers for the past five years.

 

10 WRs scored five or more TDs in their rookie seasons. Of those, six were taken in the first round. Another way to look at it is six of 23 first-round WRs in that span - 26% - made significant contributions. (3 TEs also did.)

 

8 DEs registered five or more sacks as rookies. Of those, four were first-rounders. Another way, four of 17 first round DEs - 24% - made significant contributions. (2 DTs did as well.)

 

So is there a difference between drafting a receiver or a DL in terms of rookie production? The numbers don't think so.

[Tipster19]

Agreed but I think the Bills will be making a trade for a wr....just a hunch.

 

I'm with you 100% on this thought.

 

 

Tipsy, I think where I disagree with you is your idea of a "significant" contribution. Last year, Bills WRs not named Evans combined for 1 touchdown. So, I think adding a rookie WR who could score 5 TDs, in my mind, would be a very significant contribution. I compared it to a "significant" contribution from rookie DEs - 5 sacks. Here are the numbers for the past five years.

 

10 WRs scored five or more TDs in their rookie seasons. Of those, six were taken in the first round. Another way to look at it is six of 23 first-round WRs in that span - 26% - made significant contributions. (3 TEs also did.)

 

8 DEs registered five or more sacks as rookies. Of those, four were first-rounders. Another way, four of 17 first round DEs - 24% - made significant contributions. (2 DTs did as well.)

 

So is there a difference between drafting a receiver or a DL in terms of rookie production? The numbers don't think so.

 

All I'm saying is that a valid compliment doesn't have to be selected with our first rd pick. I need to temper what I want and what I think. I feel that dependinding how many WRs are taken in the first rd will determine if we use a 2nd or 3rd rder to address our need at this position. When there is supposed to be a WR like Jordy Nelson available in the 3rd rd then I feel that that we can accomplish what we need in this rd. If the need or desire is much bigger than what I'm anticipating then we could definitely use our second rder to grab a more than adeguate WR. Keep in mind that a trade up into the first rd, or even more realisticly the second rd, is still an option that we can execute.