Jump to content


So few picks...


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 OldTimer1960

OldTimer1960

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:37 PM

I've read many times on this board that the Bills' "have very few picks" and "have only 6 picks" in this draft.

There are only 7 rounds in the draft and that means that the nominal number of picks is only 7.  Further the Bills are only "missing" their 7th round pick - a pick that occurs after approximately 200 players have been selected.  There will be approximately 25 picks after that missing pick in the entire draft.

I see this as no great loss.  They received a viable backup QB possibility (Tarvaris Jackson) for that 7th round pick.  Odds are reasonable that whomever they could have selected with that pick wouldn't have the career that TJax has already had.

25ish more players will be selected after that missing pick and then the Bills are on equal footing with all other teams competing for undrafted free agents.

I just don't see this as the issue it has been made out to be.

Comments/opposing views welcomed.

#2 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:51 PM

My brainstorm take as I'm getting ready to run out the door:

I think the point of mentioning that the Bills have "only 6 picks" is that it's less than ideal. Teams would prefer to have the full complement.

Why exactly?


Undrafted free agents sometimes get better contracts than 7th rounders so teams like having that 7th round pick because it enables them to "lock up" a player at a lower price as opposed to having to bid for that player on the open market.

Regardless, it's a given that the Bills will be very aggressive in the undrafted free agent market and I think their caution in veteran free agency is a sign that they are preserving as much cap space as possible.

#3 The Cincinnati Kid

The Cincinnati Kid

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 923 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

I think it has a lot to do with trades and maneuverability within the draft.  I agree, not a huge deal, but it might be the difference between making a trade back into the bottom of the first or not.

#4 Johnny Hammersticks

Johnny Hammersticks

    You want a beer? How about some ether?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,886 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:55 PM

You can never have too many draft picks.  The 49ers have 13 of them, and will likely be able to maneuver around in the draft to grab their favorite prospects.  I don't think it's a huge deal that we won't have a 7th rounder this year, but I think folks have become accustomed (in the past few years) to having an extra 4th rounder and an extra late round pick.  Also, I think folks are panicking (rightfully so) because we have so many glaring holes to fill, and have yet to close those gaps in free agency.

#5 Ramius

Ramius

    Don't Tread on Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,376 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:57 PM

View PostOldTimer1960, on 11 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I've read many times on this board that the Bills' "have very few picks" and "have only 6 picks" in this draft.

There are only 7 rounds in the draft and that means that the nominal number of picks is only 7.  Further the Bills are only "missing" their 7th round pick - a pick that occurs after approximately 200 players have been selected.  There will be approximately 25 picks after that missing pick in the entire draft.

I see this as no great loss.  They received a viable backup QB possibility (Tarvaris Jackson) for that 7th round pick.  Odds are reasonable that whomever they could have selected with that pick wouldn't have the career that TJax has already had.

25ish more players will be selected after that missing pick and then the Bills are on equal footing with all other teams competing for undrafted free agents.

I just don't see this as the issue it has been made out to be.

Comments/opposing views welcomed.

Great post. I've been thinking along the same lines. A lot of people act like the Bills have a small fraction of the picks of the rest of the league. We're missing a single pick, and its in the lowest round. SF with their 13? picks is extremely abnormal.

Also, since the missing pick is a 7th rounder, there's no difference in the player quality between a 6th, a 7th, and a UDFA. We're really not missing out on anything we couldn't bring in as a UDFA.

View PostThe Cincinnati Kid, on 11 April 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

I think it has a lot to do with trades and maneuverability within the draft.  I agree, not a huge deal, but it might be the difference between making a trade back into the bottom of the first or not.

Any trade involving moving back into round 1 is going to include a couple of high picks, like a 2nd and a 3rd, or a 1st/2nd next year. A missing 7th rounder is not going to make or break moving up from 41 to the upper 20s.

#6 San Jose Bills Fan

San Jose Bills Fan

    San Jose Bills Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,764 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:01 PM

View PostRamius, on 11 April 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Also, since the missing pick is a 7th rounder, there's no difference in the player quality between a 6th, a 7th, and a UDFA. We're really not missing out on anything we couldn't bring in as a UDFA.

Any trade involving moving back into round 1 is going to include a couple of high picks, like a 2nd and a 3rd, or a 1st/2nd next year. A missing 7th rounder is not going to make or break moving up from 41 to the upper 20s.

To the first paragraph, you can theoretically lock up a player with a 7th round pick for cheaper than having to compete for him on the open market. It's not a big deal but still you're saving a bit of money as well as time and energy in phone calls, courtship, etc.

To the second paragraph, 7th rounders still can come into play as trade bait, just not in the top rounds usually.

It was a 7th rounder which enabled us to move up a few spots and pick TJ Graham. A bad/inconsequential trade no doubt but had we drafted Russell Wilson, that 7th rounder would have been viewed as being very significant.

#7 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,166 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:04 PM

The point is the Bills have more holes then picks to fill them

#8 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Mr. Beerball.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,658 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:00 PM

View PostMax997, on 11 April 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

The point is the Bills have more holes then picks to fill them
Look at many teams, we are not much different.  A clear example of this is looking at the available, experience FA's.  Look up to NE.  They have 3 TE's other Gronk, iirc.  That could still be a need for them if reports are correct that he'll miss all year.  Also, they ALWAYS need OL.  They need CB's - in any other year they'd cut the guy who has to do time - and he will likely get some sort of suspension.  It would also be good for them to shore up their MLB's, and start to get some youth to spell an aging Wilfork.  The WR's are experienced...no doubt about it, and playing with Brady they'll definitely get a lot of balls and yards, but they could always get more.

#9 JPS

JPS

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,540 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:06 PM

What difference does it make, the Bills don't keep anyone after the 4th round anyways.  As decent as the Bills have been in the 1st round, from round 3 on down has been nothing short of horrible under Nix.

#10 Beerball

Beerball

    Cancer sucks, fight on Jimbo!

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,605 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:21 PM

View PostOldTimer1960, on 11 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Comments/opposing views welcomed.
So few picks compared to the big holes.
QB
LB
LB
WR
WR
TE
O-line

That's 7 right there and I haven't brought up depth at any position.

#11 Lincoln Osiris

Lincoln Osiris

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:21 PM



That's how I feel about draft picks.....

#12 Rob's House

Rob's House

    I ain't no frickin monument to justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,878 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:34 PM

View PostBeerball, on 11 April 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

So few picks compared to the big holes.
QB
LB
LB
WR
WR
TE
O-line

That's 7 right there and I haven't brought up depth at any position.
I think this overstates the holes. If we had another solid WR & another solid LB we might want more depth, but I doubt we'd really refer to those positions as holes, therefore I would only count each of those positions once.

#13 KeisterHollow

KeisterHollow

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:37 PM

View PostJohnny Hammersticks, on 11 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

You can never have too many draft picks.  The 49ers have 13 of them, and will likely be able to maneuver around in the draft to grab their favorite prospects.  I don't think it's a huge deal that we won't have a 7th rounder this year, but I think folks have become accustomed (in the past few years) to having an extra 4th rounder and an extra late round pick.  Also, I think folks are panicking (rightfully so) because we have so many glaring holes to fill, and have yet to close those gaps in free agency.

I agree - it's not that we have so few picks in relation to the draft as it's structured, but our number of holes, or areas that need an influx of talent, are equal to the number of picks we have.  Typically people say if you come away from a draft with 2 or 3 good starters you've done well.  Somehow we have to find starters in the later rounds.

I don't think it's a big deal, either.  I think Marrone and Co. are going to bring in a bunch of UDFA's, and I suspect we'll land a jewel at the LB, WR, or G position that way.  I think of it this way - it's Nix's time to shine.

#14 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,166 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:40 PM

View Postjboyst62, on 11 April 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:


Look at many teams, we are not much different.  A clear example of this is looking at the available, experience FA's.  Look up to NE.  They have 3 TE's other Gronk, iirc.  That could still be a need for them if reports are correct that he'll miss all year.  Also, they ALWAYS need OL.  They need CB's - in any other year they'd cut the guy who has to do time - and he will likely get some sort of suspension.  It would also be good for them to shore up their MLB's, and start to get some youth to spell an aging Wilfork.  The WR's are experienced...no doubt about it, and playing with Brady they'll definitely get a lot of balls and yards, but they could always get more.

Why do some people always feel the need to defend the Bills by saying look at other teams as they have the same issues

I don't care about other teams, that's their problem. The bills have a lot of holes and currently only have 6 picks to fill them

#15 Beerball

Beerball

    Cancer sucks, fight on Jimbo!

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,605 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:49 PM

View PostRob, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

I think this overstates the holes. If we had another solid WR & another solid LB we might want more depth, but I doubt we'd really refer to those positions as holes, therefore I would only count each of those positions once.
I agree with you at LB to a degree but disagree with WR. But, having it your way we need 5 picks to hit out of the 6 we have. How likely is that?

#16 Rob's House

Rob's House

    I ain't no frickin monument to justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,878 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:09 PM

View PostBeerball, on 11 April 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

I agree with you at LB to a degree but disagree with WR. But, having it your way we need 5 picks to hit out of the 6 we have. How likely is that?
I agree with your overall point, that we're unlikely to solidify every position with a solid starter in the draft, I just don't think the situation is as dire as it sounds. If we had someone like Mike Williams from TB or James Jones from GB to play opposite SJ on the roster right now I don't think many would see a glaring hole there. Also, IDK how bad Chandler's ACL is, but if he's healthy I don't really think we'd consider TE a hole necessarily.

There will still be waiver wire additions & a second wave of FA, & UDFAs. If we can score 2-3 good players in the draft I think we'll be in good shape.

Edited by Rob's House, 11 April 2013 - 09:10 PM.


#17 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Mr. Beerball.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,658 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:59 PM

View PostMax997, on 11 April 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

Why do some people always feel the need to defend the Bills by saying look at other teams as they have the same issues

I don't care about other teams, that's their problem. The bills have a lot of holes and currently only have 6 picks to fill them
I am not defending the Bills or praising other teams.  I am simply saying the Bills issues are what every other team face on a regular basis in some way or form.

#18 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,166 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:23 PM

View Postjboyst62, on 11 April 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:


I am not defending the Bills or praising other teams.  I am simply saying the Bills issues are what every other team face on a regular basis in some way or form.

Going to disagree as you can't compare the Pats roster issues with the Bills. The Bills hv a lot of holes and lack depth throughout the roster more so then most teams

#19 Dibs

Dibs

    Myth Buster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,516 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:45 PM

View PostOldTimer1960, on 11 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I've read many times on this board that the Bills' "have very few picks" and "have only 6 picks" in this draft.

There are only 7 rounds in the draft and that means that the nominal number of picks is only 7.  Further the Bills are only "missing" their 7th round pick - a pick that occurs after approximately 200 players have been selected.  There will be approximately 25 picks after that missing pick in the entire draft.

I see this as no great loss.  They received a viable backup QB possibility (Tarvaris Jackson) for that 7th round pick.  Odds are reasonable that whomever they could have selected with that pick wouldn't have the career that TJax has already had.

25ish more players will be selected after that missing pick and then the Bills are on equal footing with all other teams competing for undrafted free agents.

I just don't see this as the issue it has been made out to be.

Comments/opposing views welcomed.

I totally agree with your thoughts here.

The stating of the situation as the Bills' "have very few picks" and "have only 6 picks" seems to be strangely highlighting that we don't have the standard 7 picks......rather than highlighting that we have a lot of holes to fill.

Why not say....the Bills "don't have enough picks to fill all of the holes" or "have too many holes to fill"?  Why try to instead emphasize the lack of the 7th round pick(as if it makes a difference)?

It seems like it's double dipping......a way to be negative twice with the one statement.

#20 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Mr. Beerball.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,658 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:53 PM

View PostMax997, on 11 April 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

Going to disagree as you can't compare the Pats roster issues with the Bills. The Bills hv a lot of holes and lack depth throughout the roster more so then most teams
And the Pats do not?  We have 3 backup QB's.  They have one starter.

WR.  Well they do have Kamar Aiken.  Amendola, and Donald Jones.  I think we are better off with Steve Johnson, and whoever else we get.  Yes. I'd take Johnson over Amendola.

TE.  They have Gronk.  No matter what you think of him, you must reduce that to half that worth.  He will not make all season.  Dan Fells, Jake Ballard and Hernandez are there, too.    We have Chandler, Smith, and Caussin.  Assuming we draft a TE, I would say we match up better then you'd first think because the Gronk injury factor.

OL.  Please.  We were better last year I would like to keep believing, but their line does well.  I still think we are better because we can pull a worthy OL out of thin air.

RB.  Well, they have found an answer with Ridley, but we have CJ, FJax, and Choice.

Defense
DE:  They can put a paper bag at DE and get results.  We have an outstanding DE, and have done well in the past with DE's.  I would say we are both even.

DT:  Wilfork > Dareus+KWilliams  That is, if both perform as they did last year.  Depth beyond those three is dead even, I do not care what you want to think of Tommy Kelly.

LB: I think the Pats LB's are overrated but coached very well.  I think they are good but not great.  I think our LB's are good at best.  Both teams could use at least one LB.  Mayo is not continuing to improve.

CB: Talib is old, their other starting CB is headed to jail next year and facing a suspension.  They are weak at CB.  Aaron Williams would start on their team.  We have them beat at CB, and it could still be a need for our team, too.

S:  We beat them because of Byrd. Adrian Wilson will do well, McCourtey is old (like Wilson) but Belicheck has proven he can play with age deep off the line.  We're match at S


Of course, on the field the results are different, but off the field, no one can argue the Patriots do not have a lot of holes in their roster.  If Gronk is out, then Edlemen and Amendola are not going to scare me that much.  Bend do not break.  I am more worried about Donald Jones leading the blocks for Ridley.