Draft Philosophy

[bananathumb]

I think you have stated the most sensible and most probable approach that teams take in drafting early rounders. In the Bills' case, I hope that DOES NOT mean, however, that they pass on a Rivers or Harvey just to grab a tall receiver. I will be very unimpressed if they do. What do you think?

 

 

 

I think the whole 'drafting the best available talent' concept is a little deceptive in that it is probably only relevant rarely. Most of the time it seems to me that 'the best available player' is only marginally rated higher than a slew of other players. In those cases it would be ridiculous to draft the(for example) OT when you have a probowl LT & set at RT when you could take a player of similar caliber in an area of need. A smart selector will acknowledge the concept that even though he has player A rated a little above players B, C, D-K, it is not an exact science & player K may well end up being the best of the bunch.

 

It is only when a player is significantly rated higher than the rest available that the 'drafting the best available talent' concept can really be considered. In those cases.....which are generally rare.....it would IMO be wise to either take the player(regardless of need), or orchestrate a trade down(which should not be too hard in that situation).

[BillsVet]

I don't think taking BPA is always the strategy, but it's the better strategy most of the time. Buffalo won't be in the market for a top tier OLT, RB, or QB with their top pick, regardless of who's available. And both we and the front office know it.

 

OTOH, positions which aren't ever completely filled, like DE, should enter into the equation, especially if a Derrick Harvey is available. IMO, top DE prospects tend to go off the board quicker and aren't as likely to be found in later rounds. The physical requirements for a dominating DE, especially for edge rushing RDE's, aren't found in abundance.

 

WR is deep this season, with guys like Earl Bennett, Jordy Nelson, Andre Caldwell, and Jerome Simpson likely to be available in the second round. Conversely, DE's will be long gone in the second round this year. I'm fairly certain C. Long, Gholston, Harvey, Merling, C. Campbell, and perhaps Lawrence Jackson will be gone by pick 41.

 

Either way, it's about the front office using an "economy of force" and using the absolute minimum of resouces to achieve their goal.

[Lurker]

I'd point out that when a team consistently drafts for need, there is a problem with those drafting, not the players being drafted. All the aforementioned players were selected when a major need was evident, and this year is no different.

I think it's incredibly naive to think any team in the current free agent-salary cap era isn't drafting at least 80%-90% for need every year. The window of opportunity for holding a team together shrinks every year. You can't stockpile developmental players who might be the BPA on draft day at the expense of leaving a hole in today's roster unplugged.

 

You can drink Ted Thompson's Kool-Aid all you want, but here are his last two drafts:

 

2006 draft (not to many "need" picks there...LOL)

 

2007 draft.

With no established RB on the roster, Brandon Jackson certainty was a need pick. So was Jones.

[BillsVet]

Free Agency is designed to fill holes and augment the draft. This principle was lost on Danny Snyder until this season, when he saw teams like the Giants not spend in FA, only to advance to and win the SB. It took him awhile, but teams are learning the way to win in the 21st century NFL.

 

The notion of a window of opportunity is no longer what it was in the mid to late nineties. Teams have adjusted and beter handled personnel to the point of knowing who is replaceable and who is not. Teams like GB just replace players with solid drafting.

 

Teams such as NE, IND, PHI, SD, PIT, JAC, NYG, and now GB will have a down season from time to time, but never go into the doldrums and be bad for a length. It's because they know who to rid themselves of and how to draft.

[Lurker]

The operative question is, how many years does it take to rebuild a football team? Especially with so many starters from one era to another.

The operative question is how long you can keep a team together. GMs no longer have the luxury to build a team for more than a 3-4 year window (although the length of time expands if you have a franchise QB like Indy and NE have).

 

I wonder how smart Ted Thompson's gonna look this year without a viable QB on the roster (which I don't consider Rogers to be)?

[Lurker]

Teams such as NE, IND, PHI, SD, PIT, JAC, NYG, and now GB will have a down season from time to time, but never go into the doldrums and be bad for a length. It's because they know who to rid themselves of and how to draft.

Those teams are also fortunate to have hit the jackpot on their QB position. A franchise QB elevates everybody's play, and the opposite occurs if you don't have that guy on the roster.

 

I'll reiterate--Ted Thompson's gonna look a lot more ordinary the next few years without a HOF QB on the roster.

[BillsVet]

Hitting the jackpot at QB is what good teams do on draft day.

 

Thompson's built a fine defense, and aside from Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett, hasn't used FA all that much.

 

I just like the idea of having a GM or Personnel VP who has final say on personnel matters.

 

Teams that draft well generally win on Sunday. Teams that don't are back in the top 10.

[Lurker]

Hitting the jackpot at QB is what good teams do on draft day.

So how do you explain Aaron Rogers? (but I guess you're right about the Falcons drafting Favre)

 

Thompson's built a fine defense, and aside from Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett, hasn't used FA all that much.

 

I just like the idea of having a GM or Personnel VP who has final say on personnel matters.

 

Teams that draft well generally win on Sunday. Teams that don't are back in the top 10.

What kind of record do you think GB's gonna have this year? The playoffs look pretty unlikely with a QB whose made 59 NFL throws over 3 years.

 

Also, let's see if Thompson passes on a Tight End in favor of the BPA...

[Kelly the Dog]

Hitting the jackpot at QB is what good teams do on draft day.

 

Thompson's built a fine defense, and aside from Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett, hasn't used FA all that much.

 

I just like the idea of having a GM or Personnel VP who has final say on personnel matters.

 

Teams that draft well generally win on Sunday. Teams that don't are back in the top 10.

Green Bay's offense, and entire season, basically took off because they had a Hall of Fame QB they didn't draft playing like a kid again, and they hit the lottery with a seemingly insignificant trade for a RB named Ryan Grant. Guys like Jennings and Jones look like great picks when you have Brett Favre throwing to them. Let's see how well they do with Aaron Rogers.

[Dan]

and a big reason why the team had so many holes to fill immediately is that the front office voluntarily created many of those holes by trading or cutting veteran players.

 

Specifically the Bills forced themselves to take a RB and LB at the top of the last draft becasue they cut loose starters for less than full value BEFORE the draft.

 

The year before they did the same thing with the defenseive backfield and forced themselves to turn down trade offers because they were forced to take Whitner since they had no options.

 

Look for them to be in the same boat this year at WR and QB if they trade Losman for a box of rocks as most posters want.

The FO created those holes because the players we had were not getting it done. Plain and simple. With all the superstars at RB, LB, CB; how many playoff games did we see? You're continually demonstrating a dislike for the FO for cutting veteran players and creating holes. But, you're forgetting the primary problem with all those veteran players.... they weren't playing together and (more importantly) winning together as a team. So, yes, they had to cut guys and replace them.

 

We can play the game where we go through each player cut and each trade that didn't happen and discuss how it may or may not have turned out differently. However, that's all just an exercise in futility. The bottom line is.. .the Bills organization had just gone through 5 years with TD and we had an assortment of bad, decent, good players. But the organization had no direction, no unity, and no idea of how to win consistently. So how do you change that? You do exactly what the Bills did... you bring in a new FO, draw up a plan, and bring in players and personnel that believe in that plan. Clements didn't want any part of that plan, he wanted money - so they let him walk. McGahee didn't want any part of that plan, he wanted anything else - so they let him walk. And so forth.

 

So, I wouldn't say they created holes. I would suggest that they just acknowledged that we had holes (because the players here weren't cutting it) and began filling them. We're about to enter the 3rd season of the new plan. I would expect to see a legitimate playoff push. We appear to be in that position. But we'll see. I still say it will all come down to the play of Trent. If we don't make the playoffs will it be because a second year QB folded under pressure (something that you could almost expect) or is it because the team folded? That will be the question. Of course, if we make the playoffs, it will be a validation that all of this discussion is unfounded.

[BillsVet]

Yes, GB's entire success can be attributed to Favre. No one takes the time to point out that GB's failures in 2005 and 06 could be, in large part, attributed to Favre's gunslinger type QB play. Did you watch the home game Buffalo played against GB in 2006? I was there, and Favre made several mistakes, namely a returned INT that effectively ended the game.

 

Before concluding that GB relied completely on Favre for success, remember his best season came last year, when GB could look to Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, James Jones, and a certain RB in Ryan Grant to diversify their offense. That, and a solid defense which relied a great deal on homegrown talent.

 

A QB alone cannot win games over the long term. Having good talent spread evenly on offense and defense does win. IMO, GB has done a fine job of assembling talent from the draft.

 

BTW, who says Rodgers isn't good? How does one know this? He performed well in Dallas on TV this year, and has the benefit of learning under Favre for 3 complete seasons. If the criteria is being Favre, of course he won't be.

[Lurker]

BTW, who says Rodgers isn't good? How does one know this? He performed well in Dallas on TV this year, and has the benefit of learning under Favre for 3 complete seasons.

Well, Brian Stewart for one...

 

Not too many QBs who've never started an NFL game (even with three years of riding the bench) have been successful right off the bat.

 

And NFL DCs have a way of neutralizing "where'd he come from" guys like Grant, so we'll see if Thompson's star is shining as brightly this year, for sure.

[Dibs]

I think you have stated the most sensible and most probable approach that teams take in drafting early rounders. In the Bills' case, I hope that DOES NOT mean, however, that they pass on a Rivers or Harvey just to grab a tall receiver. I will be very unimpressed if they do. What do you think?

I think that there are two factors in the draft that should always be considered.

1. Where do I perceive a player should be drafted.......and from what sources did I get this perspective?

2. Where do the Bills rate the players?

 

I personally do not have anywhere near the skills to be able to look at.....say....Harvey & possibly be able to determine if any WR in the draft is of a talent level which is on par with him. Therefore I(like virtually everyone) determines my draft board based on 'expert' media analysis. The problem with this is that they not only differ greatly......they often get things very wrong.(e.g. 2006 draft most had Winston Justice going at around #10.....he dropped to #39). For this draft I see that most have the first WR going 19 or 20.....with Rivers usually at 10-12(with a few at 19,25).....and Harvey typically slotted at 15-17.

Who knows what the talent level is between Harvey & the WRs......generally it is considered better, but not by much. How much talent drop-off is there between Rivers & the WRs? There are many factors to consider when an individual team is making the selection.....i.e. lock down CBs would be less important to a T2 team. If the Bills end up choosing a WR & passing on Rivers I would assume that they had the players rated in a similar bracket......with perhaps Rivers at a 65% chance of succeeding & the WR at a 62% chance. I would let the pick over time display whether it was a good pick.

 

In a rational & reasonable world without personal ego there would be no talk of reaching on draft day. The players selected by each team would be the players that the teams figured were the 'best choice' for them. They would be graded upon how those player turned out in the NFL......not by some variable & dubious list based on perceived talent by the individual observer.