Drafting certain positions first

[Philagape]

So today I saw the following statement:

What's the point of having a good o-line if they never find the guy who plays behind center?

That mirrors other sentiments over the past couple months that go something like,
"Why draft a QB if he has no one to throw it to and/or no LT?"
"Why draft a WR if there's no one to throw him the ball?"

So according to this logic, the Bills shouldn't draft anyone on offense because they can't shore up every position in one year! :brilliant:

Listen, anyone who thinks you have to draft a certain position first is WRONG.

The order is irrelevant. There is no order.

You don't draft just for the upcoming season, to immediately plug holes. You draft for a player's future career, at least for the next three years or so.
And you draft the best player available, excluding only positions you're set at for the foreseeable future (like CB). For the Bills, that's very few spots.
A team with as many holes as the Bills have will take years to rebuild. No matter who you draft, that player will suffer or at best won't help much because of deficiencies at other positions.

So dump this order garbage please.

[YardRat]

You build a winner from the trenches out. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage.

[FlyingDutchman]

partially i agree..i agree with the idea however im not high on the QBs coming out so it makes sense in my opinion to start building with any position except QB. I think the value will be so much higher at tackle. Id personally like us to go after top LT first or CJ Spiller. If I thought the QBs coming were decent, id totally agree that it shouldnt matter

[BillsFanCupp38]

I think the bills should take who ever is BEST on the board... Weather it be a running back, QB or linebacker... If you do that year in and year out eventually you will get an all star team. I think teams nowadays are too focused on getting the positions they need instead of the players they need. I just want the best player on the board. I dont care what position he plays.

[Philagape]

You build a winner from the trenches out. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage.

I don't disagree on the importance of the line; this isn't about what positions are more important.
I'm saying the quality of the prospect is more important than the position he plays.

[SABURZFAN]

You build a winner from the trenches out. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage.


no doubt, Yardie. :up:

[T-Long]

lines are important, but not if a franchise QB is sitting there. This league is a QB driven league, and those that don't see that are blind. If a brass believes a franchise QB is there when they are on the clock, that trumps everything.

[Michael82]

Lines are important, but I'd rather have the 2nd best QB in the draft, best RB, best WR, best NT, best OLB or best DE rather than the 4th or 5th best OT. Look at playoff teams last year and the last few years. Most of those teams draft their OL in the middle rounds or later, not the 1st round.

[jamze132]

I am not convinced there is a franchise QB in this draft. Bradford may have the best shot and we have no shot at him, so I say **** no to Clausen in RD1.

[Night Train]

You build a winner from the trenches out. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage.

Thank you. :up:

I can still remember Jacksonville when they first came into the NFL in 1995. Their 1st two picks in the draft were the two 1st team AP All-American Tackles. Tony Boselli of USC (Say hello, Canton) and Brian DiMarco of Michigan St. Both started instantly.

I see Bulaga in Philagapes' avatar. LT should indeed be a high pick. That and NT.

If you're not stout in the trenches, the rest of the team suffers. It's science !

[alohabillsfan]

Tony Boselli will be the first to tell you he is not going to Canton. He was dam good but just to short of a career! I do like listening to him on the radio in the am here in JAX

[X-Era]

So today I saw the following statement:


That mirrors other sentiments over the past couple months that go something like,
"Why draft a QB if he has no one to throw it to and/or no LT?"
"Why draft a WR if there's no one to throw him the ball?"

So according to this logic, the Bills shouldn't draft anyone on offense because they can't shore up every position in one year! :brilliant:

Listen, anyone who thinks you have to draft a certain position first is WRONG.

The order is irrelevant. There is no order.

You don't draft just for the upcoming season, to immediately plug holes. You draft for a player's future career, at least for the next three years or so.
And you draft the best player available, excluding only positions you're set at for the foreseeable future (like CB). For the Bills, that's very few spots.
A team with as many holes as the Bills have will take years to rebuild. No matter who you draft, that player will suffer or at best won't help much because of deficiencies at other positions.

So dump this order garbage please.

:clap:

Agree 100%

1) The draft isn't only 1 round long
2) This team is in rebuilding mode and it cant be fixed in one year

[X-Era]

partially i agree..i agree with the idea however im not high on the QBs coming out so it makes sense in my opinion to start building with any position except QB. I think the value will be so much higher at tackle. Id personally like us to go after top LT first or CJ Spiller. If I thought the QBs coming were decent, id totally agree that it shouldnt matter

I think that actually makes the point in a way. If the Bills feel that Clausen for example is ranked significantly below Bulaga and both are there at 9, and they take Clausen because they had targeted a QB in round one it makes Phil's point.

You should have a list of positions which need to be upgraded and be fluid enough to get the most out of the draft. Take the best player available who also fills a need.

This team has so many needs, we could go in many direction with our first pick.

[Buddo]

There are fundamental flaws in that theory. For a prime example, see the Lions under Millen.
What is necessary, is to build a team. How you go about doing that, is the debate, more so than should we pick 'X' over 'Y'.
People seem to get somewhat sidetracked (and understandably so), within that debate, over different players being better than each other.
The main thing that is clouding the 'issue' is the fact that we do not have a recognisable, quality (not necessarily 'franchise') QB.
While I think these days it is highly doubtful a team can 'win it all' without a quality QB, teams can certainly win enough to get to the playoffs without one - providing their lines are good, and they have a good running game - see Jets last year.
Even if we picked Bradford, whoi I do believe has the ability to become a 'franchise' QB, without tackles to protect him, the Bills would still be poor this year.
With tackles to protect a QB, and a running game, the Bills might actually have a decent shot at a non-losing season for the first time in ages.
The Bills are undeniably rebuilding. Missing on a first round pick, is not going to do anything at all for that process. 1st round QBs are about 50-50 hit or miss. 1st round OTs are about 80-20 hit or miss. (There's a good article on Walterfootball about this somewhere).
There will be 2 QBs taken in the first round this year, Bradford and clausen. The one I think will succeed, is Bradford. That leaves Clausen as the 'miss'.
We could still get shafted if 4 OTs come off the board before us, but I prefer our chances of getting a player from those, than risking all immediately on a QB.

[ddaryl]

Lines are important, but I'd rather have the 2nd best QB in the draft, best RB, best WR, best NT, best OLB or best DE rather than the 4th or 5th best OT. Look at playoff teams last year and the last few years. Most of those teams draft their OL in the middle rounds or later, not the 1st round.


That mind set is flawed... If the 4th or 5th best OT is still a better value over the 2nd best QB then you take the OT.

If the 2nd QB in the draft isn't a franchise caliber QB for the BIlls scheme and /or elements then is it worth it...

[Philagape]

I see Bulaga in Philagapes' avatar. LT should indeed be a high pick. That and NT.


Because I like the player.

[better days]

Tony Boselli will be the first to tell you he is not going to Canton. He was dam good but just to short of a career! I do like listening to him on the radio in the am here in JAX

Yeah, the biggest mistake the Texans made was taking him in the expansion draft. He was finished before he ever got there.

[Mahdi]

So today I saw the following statement:


That mirrors other sentiments over the past couple months that go something like,
"Why draft a QB if he has no one to throw it to and/or no LT?"
"Why draft a WR if there's no one to throw him the ball?"

So according to this logic, the Bills shouldn't draft anyone on offense because they can't shore up every position in one year! :brilliant:

Listen, anyone who thinks you have to draft a certain position first is WRONG.

The order is irrelevant. There is no order.

You don't draft just for the upcoming season, to immediately plug holes. You draft for a player's future career, at least for the next three years or so.
And you draft the best player available, excluding only positions you're set at for the foreseeable future (like CB). For the Bills, that's very few spots.
A team with as many holes as the Bills have will take years to rebuild. No matter who you draft, that player will suffer or at best won't help much because of deficiencies at other positions.

So dump this order garbage please.
Exactly.


I can't stand the "we must draft X position before Y position"


If a superstar is on the board you take him and build the value of yer team up no matter where he plays.

In 2 years you want to be able to say that you selected a PBer with your top 10 pick.

[methos4ever]

I like what Nix said when he got here: Draft the superstars and sign FAs that can fill in around them. To me, that means don't eschew helping yourself 3 years from now with a PB'er for the sake of drafting 4th best person at another need now.

[OpIv37]

So today I saw the following statement:


That mirrors other sentiments over the past couple months that go something like,
"Why draft a QB if he has no one to throw it to and/or no LT?"
"Why draft a WR if there's no one to throw him the ball?"

So according to this logic, the Bills shouldn't draft anyone on offense because they can't shore up every position in one year! :brilliant:

Listen, anyone who thinks you have to draft a certain position first is WRONG.

The order is irrelevant. There is no order.

You don't draft just for the upcoming season, to immediately plug holes. You draft for a player's future career, at least for the next three years or so.
And you draft the best player available, excluding only positions you're set at for the foreseeable future (like CB). For the Bills, that's very few spots.
A team with as many holes as the Bills have will take years to rebuild. No matter who you draft, that player will suffer or at best won't help much because of deficiencies at other positions.

So dump this order garbage please.

You are dead wrong about this. 100% wrong. Read Marv Levy's book where he talks about QB development.

If you draft a QB and put him in there with no OL and no WR's, he gets shell-shocked and becomes useless. And again, this isn't me saying this. Marv said it, and we have the real-world examples of JP Losman and Trent Edwards.

With your logic, the ONLY way drafting a QB makes sense is if we plan to make him 3rd on the depth chart and sit him for 2-3 years while he learns and while the team fixes the OL and WR situations.

This is a team with glaring holes at NT, DE, LT, QB, and needs at LB, interior OL, WR, and maybe RB. And you're talking about drafting a player at #9 overall and paying him to sit on the bench for 2 or 3 years, at the expense of filling one of those other positions. That's just illogical.

[justasportsfan]

we're going to have to keep the Fins, jets and Pats O off the field. We're going to have to run more since we also don't have a qb. I say, bills take Spiller. Wish we could get him in the 2nd. :ill:

[ddaryl]

Exactly.


I can't stand the "we must draft X position before Y position"


If a superstar is on the board you take him and build the value of yer team up no matter where he plays.

In 2 years you want to be able to say that you selected a PBer with your top 10 pick.


I agree somewhat... BUT this game is won and lost in the trenches, and IMO a team who maintains the OL and DL at a high level will be the most successful...

the fact is our trenches are desperate for immediate help from about 10 years of neglect and piss poor decisions

[OpIv37]

If we draft a QB that we can't protect, he will NEVER become a superstar. That's what you people don't seem to understand.

[Mahdi]

You are dead wrong about this. 100% wrong. Read Marv Levy's book where he talks about QB development.

If you draft a QB and put him in there with no OL and no WR's, he gets shell-shocked and becomes useless. And again, this isn't me saying this. Marv said it, and we have the real-world examples of JP Losman and Trent Edwards.

With your logic, the ONLY way drafting a QB makes sense is if we plan to make him 3rd on the depth chart and sit him for 2-3 years while he learns and while the team fixes the OL and WR situations.

This is a team with glaring holes at NT, DE, LT, QB, and needs at LB, interior OL, WR, and maybe RB. And you're talking about drafting a player at #9 overall and paying him to sit on the bench for 2 or 3 years, at the expense of filling one of those other positions. That's just illogical.


What's illogical is drafting to fill one of our many needs in the belief it will actually make us a competitive team in our division.

You want to come out of the top 10 with a top 10 talent that brings value to your roster.

How is picking the 3rd or 4th best OT who may just be average in the NFL better for the long term health of the team over picking the #1 or 1a player at his position with All-star abilities?

We're not talking about winning in 2010. We're talking about filling the Bills roster with difference makers so that in 2-3 years we have a loaded roster.

[Philagape]

You are dead wrong about this. 100% wrong. Read Marv Levy's book where he talks about QB development.

If you draft a QB and put him in there with no OL and no WR's, he gets shell-shocked and becomes useless. And again, this isn't me saying this. Marv said it, and we have the real-world examples of JP Losman and Trent Edwards.

With your logic, the ONLY way drafting a QB makes sense is if we plan to make him 3rd on the depth chart and sit him for 2-3 years while he learns and while the team fixes the OL and WR situations.

This is a team with glaring holes at NT, DE, LT, QB, and needs at LB, interior OL, WR, and maybe RB. And you're talking about drafting a player at #9 overall and paying him to sit on the bench for 2 or 3 years, at the expense of filling one of those other positions. That's just illogical.

It's illogical if you think the purpose of the draft is only to plug needs for the upcoming year. It's not.
Especially for a team like the Bills, who are going nowhere this year no matter who they take, because of all the glaring holes you listed. Filling them will take 2-3 years no matter what, so there's nothing to lose by drafting someone who might not start right away but will within that time frame. That's still filling the position.

When it comes to upgrading positions, it's better to do it right than do it now. It's better to draft a superior player and have him wait than start an inferior player right away.

[justasportsfan]

If there is a sure thing franchise QB in this draft , I'd say take him. Problem is, there isn't one in this years draft so I would rather build a wall this but you don't have to use high picks to do so either.

[methos4ever]

It's illogical if you think the purpose of the draft is only to plug needs for the upcoming year. It's not.
Especially for a team like the Bills, who are going nowhere this year no matter who they take, because of all the glaring holes you listed. Filling them will take 2-3 years no matter what, so there's nothing to lose by drafting someone who might not start right away but will within that time frame. That's still filling the position.

When it comes to upgrading positions, it's better to do it right than do it now. It's better to draft a superior player and have him wait than start an inferior player right away.

I think the key with both of your arguments is the willingness for the team to commit to whatever philosophy or choice they go with.

To wit:
We take Clausen, with the fourth best OT (Davis for example) as the only LT left. If we're going to have him as the QB of the future, he has to be in the best condition to succeed. The O line and WR corps do not inspire confidence. If we're looking to make this team better we have to make him better, and that does not mean cowing to the fan/media pressure should Trent/Brohm/Fitzpatrick falter as a starter.

Until that line is professional and the team is prepared to help him, he would like OP says be ruined inside of a year and a half.

[Mahdi]

If we draft a QB that we can't protect, he will NEVER become a superstar. That's what you people don't seem to understand.
Really. Tell Aaron Rodgers that. Tell Matt Ryan that.

It's much easier to find a starting OT than it is to find a franchise QB.


You really think GMs sit around on draft day and say " Hey it's our pick and the franchise QB we want is on the board! Let's take him!............ Noo, wait, we don't have a good LT, forget it, uhhhhhh, take whatever LT is there."

I highly doubt it goes that way.


I think what really happens is whoever they have graded the highest with some need factor is selected. For example, if we need a RB and a QB and they are both available, the RB is rated 88 and the QB is rated 86. In that instance they might go with the QB because they are harder to find, or maybe there is a WR available like Dez Bryant who is rated a 92 and that is too much of a difference for them to ignore so they take the WR.

Whether the Bills take a QB or not is not going to be based on who else they have on the roster, it will be based on who else they have on their board that is available and how highly they have him rated.

[T-Long]

If there is a sure thing franchise QB in this draft , I'd say take him. Problem is, there isn't one in this years draft so I would rather build a wall this but you don't have to use high picks to do so either.
How do you know there is no franchise QB's? Because the "experts" said so? Was Drew Brees considered a franchise QB? Tom Brady? Tony Romo? Brett Favre?

Please.

Nobody knows if Bradford, Clausen, McCoy, etc will ever be franchise QB's. I will never fault a team, especially ours, for rolling the dice and taking a QB who they believe will lead this team for the next decade.

Right now it's looking like the top 3 (Okung, Bulaga, Williams) will be gone by 9, so in my opinion, I would take Clausen (if he is still available) than Anthony Davis. Do I like the possibility of landing Spiller or Bryant? Yes, but this is a QB driven league and WE DON'T HAVE ONE YET.

[Mahdi]

If there is a sure thing franchise QB in this draft , I'd say take him. Problem is, there isn't one in this years draft so I would rather build a wall this but you don't have to use high picks to do so either.
Well I don't think that's true. Bradford and Clausen IMO are better prospects than Stafford and Sanchez and they were picked 1 and 5.

[Philagape]

I think the key with both of your arguments is the willingness for the team to commit to whatever philosophy or choice they go with.

To wit:
We take Clausen, with the fourth best OT (Davis for example) as the only LT left. If we're going to have him as the QB of the future, he has to be in the best condition to succeed. The O line and WR corps do not inspire confidence. If we're looking to make this team better we have to make him better, and that does not mean cowing to the fan/media pressure should Trent/Brohm/Fitzpatrick falter as a starter.

Until that line is professional and the team is prepared to help him, he would like OP says be ruined inside of a year and a half.

Then you sit him. In two years, when the team has upgraded other positions around him, you put him in then and you have a built team. (assuming they picked the right players, which is no given of course in any case)
It will take that long to build the Bills no matter what draft philosophy they go with.

[OpIv37]

It's illogical if you think the purpose of the draft is only to plug needs for the upcoming year. It's not.
Especially for a team like the Bills, who are going nowhere this year no matter who they take, because of all the glaring holes you listed. Filling them will take 2-3 years no matter what, so there's nothing to lose by drafting someone who might not start right away but will within that time frame. That's still filling the position.

When it comes to upgrading positions, it's better to do it right than do it now. It's better to draft a superior player and have him wait than start an inferior player right away.

And you really think gambling on Clausen or Tebow is doing it right? Any draft pick is a gamble, but early QB's are the biggest gamble. I'd rather take someone that's more of a sure thing.

[Philagape]

And you really think gambling on Clausen or Tebow is doing it right? Any draft pick is a gamble, but early QB's are the biggest gamble. I'd rather take someone that's more of a sure thing.

Me too, that's my whole point. I've never said they should gamble on a QB. It ain't a QB in my avatar, and in the pick-a-day draft I chose Dan Williams over Clausen.

[OpIv37]

Me too, that's my whole point. I've never said they should gamble on a QB. It ain't a QB in my avatar, and in the pick-a-day draft I chose Dan Williams over Clausen.

I chose Clausen in the pick-a-day, not because I think it's what they SHOULD do, but it's what I think they WILL do if he's there and the other players chosen in the pick-a-day are already gone.