So the guys I like are going like crazy...

[X-Era]

I wanted any of the following:

Nassib
S Thomas
JC Tretter
Dion Sims
Gerald Hodges
Barrett Jones

The guys left that I like:

Vince Williams
Brandon McGee
Braxston Cave
Michael Mauti
Jordan Poyer
Cornelius Washington
Devin Taylor

So I'd be good with a few curve balls:

Marcus Lattimore
Chris Gragg
Ryan Swope
Aaron Mellette
Matt Scott
Kenny Stills
Da'Rick Rogers

[ServoBillieves]

I can't find the world's smallest violin, sorry.

[Novacane]

I'd like to see them take a flyer on Lattimore in round 5 or 6. If he doesn't recover to his old self who cares. How many5th- 6th rounders become difference makers? Hell, what % even make the team? If he does recover they got a steal.

[clumping platelets]

No more WR's unless they are UDFA

[BertSquirtgum]

I'd like to see them take a flyer on Lattimore in round 5 or 6. If he doesn't recover to his old self who cares. How many5th- 6th rounders become difference makers? Hell, what % even make the team? If he does recover they got a steal.

Fred is old and slow. Time for a different direction in that aspect, imo.

[psubills62]

Want to see them address a few of our other needs (OLB, OL, TE, CB) before going after more WR's, ILB, etc.

[Novacane]

Lattimore gone to 49ers

[Mouldsie]

Rogers may be worth a flier now. Character concerns would fit in with this class haha

I also like Quanterrus Smith. We need more pass rushers IMO

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Want to see them address a few of our other needs (OLB, OL, TE, CB) before going after more WR's, ILB, etc.

Drafting for need in the 5th is the wrong way to go about IMO. After the 4th these guys are longshots to make the roster so if you are playing with low risk picks then go for high reward ones.

[DraftBoy]

Next pick should be one of;
Jordan Poyer
Cornelius Washington
Quanterrus Smith
Da'Rick Rogers

[psubills62]

Drafting for need in the 5th is the wrong way to go about IMO. After the 4th these guys are longshots to make the roster so if you are playing with low risk picks then go for high reward ones.
I wouldn't say they're longshots to make the roster. At least, they shouldn't be, even if they have been the last couple years. You can still go for talent at positions of need. Especially at a position like TE, where you can find contributors late. Even OL this late can contribute (Hairston, e.g.).

[clumping platelets]

Jesse Williams

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I wouldn't say they're longshots to make the roster. At least, they shouldn't be, even if they have been the last couple years. You can still go for talent at positions of need. Especially at a position like TE, where you can find contributors late. Even OL this late can contribute (Hairston, e.g.).

The numbers say they are. This isn't just a Bills phenomenon, go back to the 5th round in 2010. There's only one star (Chancellor) a few backups, and a ton of camp fodder and guys who are already out of the league. And that was only 3 years ago. The same ratios pretty much seem to hold. The majority of players in the late rounds will just end up as deep depth or wash out of the league entirely. So go for the highest-ceiling guys and wehn you hit (Kyle Williams, Richard Sherman) you hit big.

[X-Era]

Fred is old and slow. Time for a different direction in that aspect, imo.Lattimore went but Ellington and Stepfan Taylor are still out there.

[psubills62]

The numbers say they are. This isn't just a Bills phenomenon, go back to the 5th round in 2010. There's only one star (Chancellor) a few backups, and a ton of camp fodder and guys who are already out of the league. And that was only 3 years ago. The same ratios pretty much seem to hold. The majority of players in the late rounds will just end up as deep depth or wash out of the league entirely. So go for the highest-ceiling guys and wehn you hit (Kyle Williams, Richard Sherman) you hit big.
Are you arguing if they're longshots to be starters/significant contributors or longshots to make the roster? You started with the latter, now you seem to be moving towards arguing the former.

I guess it's impossible to take players with high ceilings...at positions of need. We still need depth at a lot of these positions at the least, so I don't see what the problem is with taking guys who can/will be depth.

[X-Era]

No more WR's unless they are UDFAI'd still take one. Easley has done nothing and Elliott/Hogan are camp fodder at this point.

Before the draft we had Stevie and TJ in my mind. Now we have 3 (Woods) and then 3 guys battling for 2 roster spots. I'd like more competition and to fill those last 2 spots with the best possible players.

[cookie G]

Well, since the interior OL has pretty much been picked clean

Swope
Cornelius the Workout Warrior
AJ Klein
Vinston Painter.

[mjt328]

Risk with upside?

How about another Seminole and grab Brandon Jenkins?

[Mouldsie]

As far as WR give me Charles Johnson wherever he's pegged.... He wins all the analytics. I tweeted Russ Brandon about it so I'll take credit if we do try him out haha

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Are you arguing if they're longshots to be starters/significant contributors or longshots to make the roster? You started with the latter, now you seem to be moving towards arguing the former.

I'm arguing the latter but they are both true to degrees.


I guess it's impossible to take players with high ceilings...at positions of need. We still need depth at a lot of these positions at the least, so I don't see what the problem is with taking guys who can/will be depth.

Well hurf a durf obviously if there's a guy with elite potential at a position of need then take him. But guys generally fall into the fifth round because either teams think they peaked in college or they have some kind of significant red flag. For example, Marcus Lattimore was an elite halfback who horrifically blew out his leg and plummeted down draft boards. I'd much rather take a guy like him who could possibly blossom into something great despite being in a stacked position vs. taking some guy who's peak is to be our 3rd string strong safety or whatever.

Odds are long that either will become anything at all so bet on the ones with the biggest return.

[psubills62]

I'm arguing the latter but they are both true to degrees.
The former is true, the latter is not. I'm curious to know your definition of "longshot." To me, longshot means at least < 25% chance. And without looking at "the numbers," I'd easily guess there is a greater than 25% chance of these players making a roster.


Well hurf a durf obviously if there's a guy with elite potential at a position of need then take him. But guys generally fall into the fifth round because either teams think they peaked in college or they have some kind of significant red flag. For example, Marcus Lattimore was an elite halfback who horrifically blew out his leg and plummeted down draft boards. I'd much rather take a guy like him who could possibly blossom into something great despite being in a stacked position vs. taking some guy who's peak is to be our 3rd string strong safety or whatever.

Odds are long that either will become anything at all so bet on the ones with the biggest return.
If a player's peak is 3rd string, he's not a draftable prospect.

[psubills62]

Just to add to the discussion, based on what I'm seeing, 87 prospects from the 5th-7th round (2012 draft) were on rosters last year out of 118. And that does not include players who were on practice squads and were brought up later in the year.

That's 74%. Some longshot.

Oh, and thanks for the smarmy education on Lattimore, by the way. Not like I knew about him for the last 3 years or anything.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

The former is true, the latter is not. I'm curious to know your definition of "longshot." To me, longshot means at least < 25% chance. And without looking at "the numbers," I'd easily guess there is a greater than 25% chance of these players making a roster.

I'm not saying "a" roster, I'm talking about the roster of the team that drafted them. Just looking back at the 2010 draft, there 38 5th round picks. Of that, only 17 were on their original team's roster last season and that number has already dropped due to FA cuts. So in 3 years we are talking about only ~45% of picks even being with their team any more and that's not even discussing how many of them have amounted to anything. The later you go in the draft, the worse the numbers get.


If a player's peak is 3rd string, he's not a draftable prospect.

If a player's peak was much higher than "depth" he wouldn't be sitting there in the 5th round, unless there's some kind of red flag.

[psubills62]

I'm not saying "a" roster, I'm talking about the roster of the team that drafted them. Just looking back at the 2010 draft, there 38 5th round picks. Of that, only 17 were on their original team's roster last season and that number has already dropped due to FA cuts. So in 3 years we are talking about only ~45% of picks even being with their team any more and that's not even discussing how many of them have amounted to anything. The later you go in the draft, the worse the numbers get.
How exactly is 45% a longshot? That's pretty close to 50/50 (with only one year's worth of data).

I never mentioned the ones "who have amounted to anything." You're the one who brought that up after I questioned your "longshot to make a roster" statement.

Still waiting on your definition of "longshot," too, especially given these numbers.


If a player's peak was much higher than "depth" he wouldn't be sitting there in the 5th round, unless there's some kind of red flag.
Yeah. I know it's shocking, but 2nd string = depth too.

You seem to think that when I say I want players at positions of need, I don't want players with good potential.

[X-Era]

Now Brandon McGee is gone...

Teams like these guys as much or more than I do.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

How exactly is 45% a longshot? That's pretty close to 50/50 (with only one year's worth of data).

That's 45% to have even been listed on the roster last year. I didn't even differentiate between starters, depth, and guys who were sitting on the practice squad or the "inactive 8" on gameday.


I never mentioned the ones "who have amounted to anything." You're the one who brought that up after I questioned your "longshot to make a roster" statement.

First, I said "longshot to make the roster." The roster of the team that drafted them. It doesn't redeem a pick if he makes someone else's roster.

Second, having a player amount to something is kind of implied when you draft him. That's my point, you are trying to get players who become successful. Since the odds are so low that that they will, go for the ones who could turn out the best.

Just an example: Lets say you need a microwave. Would you rather take a 5% chance at winning a $100 microwave you need or a 5% chance at winning a $1000 TV that you didn't need?


You seem to think that when I say I want players at positions of need, I don't want players with good potential.

And you seem to think that just because we need a position that a player with good potential at that position is available. We need a guard, but the other teams have drafted the crap out of the guards. Should we take one for the sake of taking one or try to take a higher reward prospect even if that position is "filled"?

Take Steve Johnson. He came out in 2008. At the time we had on the roster: Lee Evans (1st rounder), Josh Reed (2nd rounder), Roscoe Parrish (2nd rounder), all of whom were 28 years old or younger. And to that we had just added James Hardy early in the 2nd round. But any meaningful definition, wideout was "filled." But we took Johnson in the 7th on his potential, and he turned out better than all of them.

[psubills62]

That's 45% to have even been listed on the roster last year. I didn't even differentiate between starters, depth, and guys who were sitting on the practice squad or the "inactive 8" on gameday.
OK...do I care about differentiation? By the way, see my next response below as an added answer to this "45%."


First, I said "longshot to make the roster." The roster of the team that drafted them. It doesn't redeem a pick if he makes someone else's roster.

Second, having a player amount to something is kind of implied when you draft him. That's my point, you are trying to get players who become successful. Since the odds are so low that that they will, go for the ones who could turn out the best.

Just an example: Lets say you need a microwave. Would you rather take a 5% chance at winning a $100 microwave you need or a 5% chance at winning a $1000 TV that you didn't need?
Allow me to take another look at your quote and highlight a different word. "...longshot to make the roster." Yet the numbers you're presenting are not percentage of MAKING the roster, you're looking at the percentage that they stay on the roster for 3 years. So that 45% is irrelevant regarding your original statement anyway.

Providing depth definitely qualifies as amounting to something. Unless you think there should be 53 starters on every team?

Who says the percentages are the same? You apparently think red flags mean nothing. What if the odds are actually 5% chance at winning a $100 microwave vs. a 0.5% change at winning a $1000 TV?


And you seem to think that just because we need a position that a player with good potential at that position is available. We need a guard, but the other teams have drafted the crap out of the guards. Should we take one for the sake of taking one or try to take a higher reward prospect even if that position is "filled"?

Take Steve Johnson. He came out in 2008. At the time we had on the roster: Lee Evans (1st rounder), Josh Reed (2nd rounder), Roscoe Parrish (2nd rounder), all of whom were 28 years old or younger. And to that we had just added James Hardy early in the 2nd round. But any meaningful definition, wideout was "filled." But we took Johnson in the 7th on his potential, and he turned out better than all of them.
And you seem to assume that drafting positions of need does not include drafting potential. Do you really think, given a decently large number of needs, that NO players with good potential will be left at any of them, while other positions have plenty of players with good potential?

Four players at WR = filled? OK, sure. Especially when two of those are slot receivers and only two are outside guys. I remember that draft pretty clearly and also remember very clearly needing more than one receiver in that draft. Would enjoy hearing a "meaningful definition" that leads to WR being filled at that point.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

OK...do I care about differentiation?

Perhaps you should?


Allow me to take another look at your quote and highlight a different word. "...longshot to make the roster." Yet the numbers you're presenting are not percentage of MAKING the roster, you're looking at the percentage that they stay on the roster for 3 years. So that 45% is irrelevant regarding your original statement anyway.

Three years is the typical length you give to evaluate a pick.


Providing depth definitely qualifies as amounting to something. Unless you think there should be 53 starters on every team?

Does sitting on the roster bubble for three seasons and getting dumped when you don't show anything count as "amounting to something"? Has the team that picked him "addressed" the position?


Who says the percentages are the same? You apparently think red flags mean nothing. What if the odds are actually 5% chance at winning a $100 microwave vs. a 0.5% change at winning a $1000 TV?

I don't think you know how expected value works.


And you seem to assume that drafting positions of need does not include drafting potential. Do you really think, given a decently large number of needs, that NO players with good potential will be left at any of them, while other positions have plenty of players with good potential?

No, I'm saying that you should draft solely on potential without regard to need once you get past the 4th round. The odds that you will get any production out of that pick are very long, so roll the dice on the better prospects.


Four players at WR = filled? OK, sure. Especially when two of those are slot receivers and only two are outside guys. I remember that draft pretty clearly and also remember very clearly needing more than one receiver in that draft. Would enjoy hearing a "meaningful definition" that leads to WR being filled at that point.

The 2008 bills had roster detritus just like we do. Are you telling me you don't remember the immortal Justin Jenkins? Most teams would say that when you invest not one, not two, not three, but four top 55 picks on a unit in the span of 6 years then it's not a "need" any more. Johnson was a high potential guy - a one year wonder but one who made first team all-SEC in that year. Instead of investing in a "need" postion where we had gaping holes (like center), they swung for the fences and hit a home run.

Do you consider our current WR unit filled? Right now our guys have less draft pedigree or experience than the 2008 unit by far.

[psubills62]

Three years is the typical length you give to evaluate a pick.
And yet three years is not the typical length you give to determine whether a pick made the roster. You're the one who said "longshot to make the roster," not me. Three year evaluation has nothing to do with making the roster after being drafted.

I'm also still waiting on a definition of "longshot."


Does sitting on the roster bubble for three seasons and getting dumped when you don't show anything count as "amounting to something"? Has the team that picked him "addressed" the position?
If a player can contribute appropriately as depth, then yes.


I don't think you know how expected value works.
I feel I've got a pretty good grasp of it. But our opinions of each other seem to match pretty well.


No, I'm saying that you should draft solely on potential without regard to need once you get past the 4th round. The odds that you will get any production out of that pick are very long, so roll the dice on the better prospects.
I'd again disagree with your wording here, but I'm sure if I address it, you'll just change your argument yet again, like always. I think you can get production out of these players, and it depends on the dropoff between prospects. There are always players with potential at pretty much every position - the key is always identifying which ones are more likely to reach it. There might be injury red flags, might be off-the-field red flags, there might be the notion that a player wasn't used well in college, there might be a change in scheme, there might be issues with a player's size (Kyle Williams almost certainly fell under this one, and shockingly, we needed DT's that year), etc.

What it also comes down to is how much the player you're drafting will improve your team. If you have crap at one position (e.g. TE) and you've already drafted several safeties, why take another safety when you're probably just going to have to cut one of them and you could have a TE that actually stays on the roster and contributes? The best way to improve the team is dependent on need.


The 2008 bills had roster detritus just like we do. Are you telling me you don't remember the immortal Justin Jenkins? Most teams would say that when you invest not one, not two, not three, but four top 55 picks on a unit in the span of 6 years then it's not a "need" any more. Johnson was a high potential guy - a one year wonder but one who made first team all-SEC in that year. Instead of investing in a "need" postion where we had gaping holes (like center), they swung for the fences and hit a home run.

Do you consider our current WR unit filled? Right now our guys have less draft pedigree or experience than the 2008 unit by far.
Graham is hardly detritus at this point. Still could be a decent player (and I think you could judge Parrish/Reed pretty well at that point, even if they were less than 28 years old, they'd been in the league long enough).

I think they could use one more WR right now, but I also think they could find one in UDFA. If the Bills think it's a need and worth drafting one more, fine, but I believe there are other stronger needs.

[JoeMama]

TJ Graham doesn't belong in the NFL. He's small and has no hands. Utterly talentless.

And even the idiots who run this team seem to know it or else they wouldn't have drafted two receivers on day one.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

If a player can contribute appropriately as depth, then yes.

You're willing to content yourself with players contributing appropriately as depth, even though the odds are long that they'll even do that, rather than try for someone who might contribute as more than that.


I think you can get production out of these players, and it depends on the dropoff between prospects. There are always players with potential at pretty much every position - the key is always identifying which ones are more likely to reach it. There might be injury red flags, might be off-the-field red flags, there might be the notion that a player wasn't used well in college, there might be a change in scheme, there might be issues with a player's size (Kyle Williams almost certainly fell under this one, and shockingly, we needed DT's that year), etc.

Of course, no one is saying throw darts at the draft board. But if you identify a guy with significant potential in the late rounds - take him. It doesn't matter where he plays.


What it also comes down to is how much the player you're drafting will improve your team. If you have crap at one position (e.g. TE) and you've already drafted several safeties, why take another safety when you're probably just going to have to cut one of them and you could have a TE that actually stays on the roster and contributes? The best way to improve the team is dependent on need.

But the odds are that said TE won't contribute and will be off the team in less than 3 seasons. If you take the TE but he does nothing and gets cut, you are in the exact same place you'd be if you took the safety with the higher ceiling and he did nothing and got cut.

BUT, if you take the safety and he pans out, then you've got an excellent player at a bargain price which opens up any number of options. You can move him for a better pick like the Matt Cassel trade, you can move the higher-priced veteran, you can work in different play packages, etc. These wouldn't come around if you had a guy who peaked out at backup tight end.


Graham is hardly detritus at this point.

And I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the random dudes floating around the roster bubble like Easley, Hogan, and Elliot. Right now we have 7 wideouts on the roster and Dickerson and Smith listed elsewhere. In 2008 I'm sure we had just as many random camp bodies around. That didn't stop us from taking Johnson and it panned out wonderfully.


Still could be a decent player (and I think you could judge Parrish/Reed pretty well at that point, even if they were less than 28 years old, they'd been in the league long enough).

You could judge them and be pretty accurate. Parrish was a great returnman and a slot jitterbug who couldn't stay healthy and Reed was a slow guy to run to the sticks and catch a first down every so often. Evans was a lower tier #1 that everyone hoped could break out and Hardy was the supposedly promising rookie.

If anything, our wideout situation was more settled then then it was this morning. Then we only had to worry about Hardy settling in as the #2 where as now we are breaking in a #2 and a #3/4.


I think they could use one more WR right now, but I also think they could find one in UDFA. If the Bills think it's a need and worth drafting one more, fine, but I believe there are other stronger needs.

It isn't our biggest need and I wouldn't claim it was. IMO our biggest need is guard. But if given the choice between a WR with star potential and a guard with backup potential in the late rounds, I'm taking the former because they are both dice rolls.

[psubills62]

You're willing to content yourself with players contributing appropriately as depth, even though the odds are long that they'll even do that, rather than try for someone who might contribute as more than that.
You really love creating straw men, don't you. If you can find the word "content" in my post, feel free to point it out to me.


Of course, no one is saying throw darts at the draft board. But if you identify a guy with significant potential in the late rounds - take him. It doesn't matter where he plays.

But the odds are that said TE won't contribute and will be off the team in less than 3 seasons. If you take the TE but he does nothing and gets cut, you are in the exact same place you'd be if you took the safety with the higher ceiling and he did nothing and got cut.

BUT, if you take the safety and he pans out, then you've got an excellent player at a bargain price which opens up any number of options. You can move him for a better pick like the Matt Cassel trade, you can move the higher-priced veteran, you can work in different play packages, etc. These wouldn't come around if you had a guy who peaked out at backup tight end.

And I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the random dudes floating around the roster bubble like Easley, Hogan, and Elliot. Right now we have 7 wideouts on the roster and Dickerson and Smith listed elsewhere. In 2008 I'm sure we had just as many random camp bodies around. That didn't stop us from taking Johnson and it panned out wonderfully.

You could judge them and be pretty accurate. Parrish was a great returnman and a slot jitterbug who couldn't stay healthy and Reed was a slow guy to run to the sticks and catch a first down every so often. Evans was a lower tier #1 that everyone hoped could break out and Hardy was the supposedly promising rookie.

If anything, our wideout situation was more settled then then it was this morning. Then we only had to worry about Hardy settling in as the #2 where as now we are breaking in a #2 and a #3/4.

It isn't our biggest need and I wouldn't claim it was. IMO our biggest need is guard. But if given the choice between a WR with star potential and a guard with backup potential in the late rounds, I'm taking the former because they are both dice rolls.
I don't even know how you manage to turn this into such an issue. I want to draft positions we're weak at. If there are players at this point who have star potential, it's generally not recognized until they actually play in the NFL. Because players with star potential are drafted early, not in the 5th-7th round.

You're strongly overrating the chance that 1) any one position will be that much greater in terms of "potential" than any other, and 2) the chances that any of these guys won't amount to anything. Number 1 is the main issue with your arguments. And honestly, the fact that you used Kyle Williams near the beginning as someone who had a high ceiling is quite hilarious. He would definitely be seen as a low ceiling player because of his size - which is why some guys work to overcome or make up for their shortcomings and actually emerge as really good players.

You were the one who initially said these players have a long shot to make the roster, which is clearly wrong. You've changed your angle multiple times - even after I specifically asked you what it was you were trying to argue.

In the end, the method I espoused is not mutually exclusive from the idea of taking someone with high potential, even if you think it is for whatever reason. That's really all that needs to be said.

[TigerJ]

TJ Graham doesn't belong in the NFL. He's small and has no hands. Utterly talentless.

And even the idiots who run this team seem to know it or else they wouldn't have drafted two receivers on day one.Buffalo drafted 2 WRS because they only had two on the roster (Steve Johnson and TJ Graham) who had any playing time worth mentioning last season at all. BTW TJ isn't any smaller than Marquis Goodwin. I think he's a bit taller, in fact.