Wizard
-
Posts
701 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wizard
-
-
Dexter McCluster and Jevan Snead from OLE MISS or Jordan Shipley and Colt McCoy from TEXAS.
There are several McCluster like players available in the draft, and the Bills have one in Parrish. The problem is he is the product of crappy coaching and use. I'll pass on McCluster. Snead is the newest version of JaMarcus Russell with a smaller arm and less prestigious college program....Pass!
Shipley is going to be a good player, but he's only good in the slot position. In other words, he's a #3 receiver. If the Bills got him in round #3 or later, then this is a good pickup. I wouldn't mind taking McCoy, but he's going to go before the Bills #41 pick.
The only way I would take him is we trade down in the 1st round for an additional second. Then, I would consider Colt.
I'd consider two out of these four players.
-
Take an LT at #9 (if any of them are left), then trade back into the 20s to take Clausen, where he'll be sitting after the Bills pass on him with their first pick.
hmm...let's see....the last time a team took an OT in the first round and then traded back into the 1st round to pick up a QB was the Browns. Joe Thomas was a stud! Brady Quinn...is well, Brady Quinn.
Let's see...another time a team took a wide receiver and then traded back into round #1 to get a quarterback was the Bills. They ended up with Lee "I get 9 million" Evans and J.P. Losman.
It is very simple.
#1. If Bulaga or Okung falls to them, call it a blessing. It won't happen but that eliminates the stupid comments that both Okung and Bulaga are somehow going to be available.
#2. Since answer #1 is almost impossible, then best option is to see if there are Clausen takers, if so, pull the trigger on a trade.
#3. If there are no Clausen takers and the Bills feel great about him, take him!
#4. If the Bills don't feel good about him, take the best player available!
-
Just imagine what kind of picks we could get doing this. I would love to have 4 picks in the first two rounds......Imagine.
Imagine is all you can do. Neither Lynch or Evans would net the Bills a 1st round pick let alone three. We could probably get one first round pick for both of them; otherwise, Evans and Lynch are not worth anything higher than a 2nd rounder and more likely a 3rd rounder.
-
I like Tate and think he improved his physical play last season, but I would be wary of drafting another small WR when we've already tied up a lot in Evans. But mostly, I think the weaknesses in other areas are so significant that the Bills simply can't afford to spend any picks in the first 4-5 rounds on WR/RB/DB.
Yep, the very earliest that this team should be touching a WR/RB should be round 5.
The first four rounds need to spent on OT/DT/LB/DE
-
I know he's a bit undersided for a 3-4 NT, but I don't remember Freddy or Jeff Wright being all that big when the Bills ran the 3-4 in the late 80's and 90's. How is this different?
In the 1980's and early 90's, there weren't too many defensive or offensive players that weighed above 300 lbs. A 280lb or 290lb NT in this era is a 320+NT in 2010.
Also, Kyle Williams doesn't have Bruce Smith, Phil Hansen, or Cornelius Bennett playing alongside or behind him.
This is why it is different!!!
-
2nd and Whitner?????
If we gave them a 2nd and Whitner, the Ravens would also ask for our 1st round pick to off-set our dumping of Whitner.
-
Any thought on doing a ..."We want you back in Buffalo" Billboard in Schobels home town? Kinda like the one they did for Farve. I am sure some don't want him back but I think we could use hime in the new 3-4. Thoughts??
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/imag...e-billboard.jpg
Let's see: Brett Favre and Aaron Schobel. For some reason, only one of these names sounds like a first ballot hall of fame player.
-
my draft
1. Trent Williams OT
2. John Jerry OG
3 Koa Misi OLB
4. Tony Washington OT
5. Ed Wang OT - I think ED Wang will be cured of limp play if he gets Wood with Levitre
6. Marshall Newhouse OG
6. BPA
7 BPA
7 BPA
I get complaints that my draft doesn't address the OL enough but thats the risky gambler I am.
No thanks on Trent Williams. The guy has character issues. Washington wouldn't be a bad option in the 4th round, but I bet he goes earlier (round 3)
-
and round 2 and round 5......
and round 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
There has to be two OT's out there for Buffalo. If not, bring in Anthony Munoz for $10 million for one season. He doesn't even have to tryout. He's locked in at LT for a year while our 1st round pick OT develops.
-
Great post and research. Don't aplogize for it.
So, as a football fan, who you really think we will draft?
I will do a follow-up study on the week of April 12 on the 30 sites and compare how players have moved "up" and "down" in projections since my March analysis, but here is my top 10 right now. I will compare this again in April, and then compare to the results of the draft at the end of April. Unfortunately, I don't have the Bills picking a guy I would like. Buffalo reaches for Davis, if they don't trade down. I would like Bulaga or Okung, but my study show far shows a low probability based on the 30 website slottings. Based on my current study, Davis can be had between 16-20, but Buffalo takes him at #9 because of the need for a OT. Buffalo passes on Clausen, and Clausen is scooped up by Jacksonville at #10.
1. Bradford (Rams)
2. Suh (Lions)
3. McCoy (Bucs)
4. Okung (Washington)
5. Bulaga (Chiefs)
6. Berry (Seattle)
7. Haden (Cleveland)
8. Bryant (Oakland)
9. Davis (Buffalo)
10. Clausen (Jacksonville)
-
There are some sights that are clearly fanboy message board geeks and have no basis in reality.
The one sight that recentely popped out that I found pretty insightfull is http://www.nfldraft101.com
The writers seem to offer a little more insight.
Other sights I frequent
WalterFootball.com
TheHuddle.com
KFFL.com
fantasysharks.com
fanball.com used to be good but it went downhill recently, I think it was bought out and the new group doesn't seem to care but there fantasy draft guides have still been quality (2/4 championship games,3/4 playoff teams,)
footballguys.com does some cool stuff.
Alot of the sights are fantasy football focused but most do Mock NFL drafts.
The same nerds that are focused on fantasy football are focused on Mock NFL drafts.
Not very scientific I just looked at my RSS feeds and bookmarks.
http://www.nfldraft101.com has been shooting up the charts.
I happen to hope that this mock comes true:
http://www.nfldraft101.com/mocks/90/1/Chri...ing_Combine.jsp
I'll have to check all of these out. Of course, as has been said, when it is all said and done, it is quite likely that the draft will fall in a completely different order. After all, the only predictable thing about that draft is the unpredictability of some situations that will occur.
-
while I applaud the effort and it certainly has created a discussion and judging from the posts a lot of people enjoyed the read. My issue is the subject matter doesn't lend itself to inferential statistical analysis, essentially for statistical analysis to be meaningful e.g., to make inferences or prediction based the information at hand the statistic must be "observable" even if its only on a limited basis. For instance with just a small sample size e.g, if we take a sample of the heights of of 29 people who post on the Stadium Wall, we could say with great degree of likelihood what the average height of the entire board is, and describe the likelihood of a poster being 7'feet tall or being a midget.
Whereas you're basing your analysis on the opinions of perceived experts predictions, unfortunately the true data is not observable and resides in the heads of GMs/and Coaches. Moreover the GM's intentionally obfuscate the discussion to disguise their poker hand, and the experts themselves (e.g., blogs, media) fall victim to group think, where their aim is not an accurate prediction but rather one that is in line with their peers to avoid embarrassment.
I think your analysis works well as an aggregator of the opinions of the blogs/media, e.g., if someone didn't have the time to read 30 blogs and media predictions they could read your post and come away with an accurate description of the what the blogs are saying, but as far as using your post as predictor of what will happen it is simply not statistically valid.
I do think you could say something valid with regards to the past performance of these websites in terms of accuracy of their predictions. Just off the top of my head Logit analysis would probably work the best as your dealing with qualitative information.
Cheers, and thanks for the hard work.
I actually know what you are talking about.
Of course, there isn't a perfect statistical equation or approach. It is a work-in-progress. Yes, an aggregator of opinions is all the information that I can use; however, my prediction of where people will fall in the draft can be statistically measured off of the aggregate opinions. It doesn't make my predictions more accurate, but it will give some insight into the accuracy of the pro and media people's thoughts.Again, it is a school project. There are many gaping holes, but these holes are accounted for in my paper.
-
No hang-up here (and thanks for the insight about the role of descrptive statistics in inferential analyses). As a fellow Bills fan, I appreciate your efforts to predict the results of the draft (just like the others that appear here) even though, if we are really honest about it, there are far too many known and unknown variables to insert into your statistical analysis, given your sample size. It is an interesting approach to what is, essentially, a crap-shoot. My objection to your post had far less to do with your mis-categorization of standard deviation (or z - scores for that matter) than to its condescending nature. It is what, in 30+ years of teaching this content, I have railed against, i.e., trying to impress others with our knowedge(?) of statistical analyses, and why it is superior to anyone else's "best guess." It remains an imprecise art, at best. Does this constitute an intelligent response by your definition?
If my response was condescending, I sincerely apologize. And, no I'm not trying to be sarcastic.
Of course, the draft is an art, and there are too many variables too possibly make any perfect predictions on the draft. I'd be foolish to think so.
I'm doing this for a class assignment, and I thought I would post it for people's thoughts, comments, or disagreement. I only care about learning in my assignment and hoping the Bills draft a quality player.
However, my only disagreement with you is that statistics (if used appropriately and not to "twist" information) does provide generally a more educated guess to just stating a personal opinion. Otherwise, statistics wouldn't be used in just about every measurement, including the NFL Combine.
It is far from perfect, but statistics can provide an advantage to speculation.
And, if my presentation seemed to come across as a display of superior knowledge, please know that was never intended either.
It was merely a sharing of some work I had done for a class with the intention of creating a lively discussion.
Best,
Wizard
-
I am not impressed. Perhaps, if you didn't describe standard deviation as an inferential statistic, your predictions might have more credibility. Better forget the Bills for a while and concentrate on your studies, my friend!
Bob, you are right. Standard Deviation is a descriptive statistic. However, descriptive statistics also often serve a role in evaluation within inferential statistics. Forgive my semantics. If semantics is your only point of fault, then you win. If semantics is your hang-up for not providing an intelligent response, then I'm sorry that was your hang-up.
Mountain or mole hill, Bob?
-
Thanks for the information.
Yes...once I get the foundation for my first study, I will have a better idea of what variables to tweak.
I think my goal is to take the 10-15 best sites/magazines, and then do an analysis/rating system of which have the best track record. However, this is a step or two away from where I am currently at.
Does anyone know what are considered the most reliable/accurate sites and/or most read sites?
I picked the 15 from my study without a lot of knowledge other than the sites were purportedly coming from pro's, media personnel, and/or above the average fan such as myself.
Thanks again.
Wizard
Nice work.I use this site as another MockDraft database.
The Hail to the Redskin site makes my skin crawl (XXVI)
http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/2010/nf...ft-database.cfm
If you do any time of previous year's acuuracy study can you private message me.
Being in a Dynasty League a read many mock drafts but I very rarely see a site account for the predictions.
Its real easy to do a mock but which "experts" actually have a good track record.
You couldn't just do a simple right and wrong as far as player is concerned you'd have to look at position the player drafted and also the next best player ranked at the position of need. (i.e. If Clausen and Bradford are off the board a team may trade down or not take a QB because the #3 ranked QB is a much lower ranked player as compared to players at other positions)
It'd be really complicated to come up with a rating system but I'm sure you have some more projects to do.
-
You probably would also want to weight the various mocks you're using according to their previous accuracy, no?
Yes. I will only be doing the comparison between the previous 30 Mocks selected. But, yes, the validity of my study's accuracy will have to compare March data with April data and then a comparison to the actual Draft results.
-
Have you applied this analysis to previous years' drafts (and mocks) to test its accuracy? I assume yes but I wasn't sure.
No. I haven't yet to previous draft year (mocks)..but I do plan on doing a comparison the week before the this draft (April 15) to this report. And, then I plan on doing an analysis after the 1st round is over.
I will be posting these around the 20th of April, and the final one a week after the draft to compare the results.
If my hypothesis has any statistical validity, my April 15 Round #1 should be more accurate than almost any mock draft, if (and it is a big IF), the mocks of professional drafters and media are more accurate than fan mock drafts.
-
A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
I've made this as simple as possible realizing statistics can be boring too many people; in addition, I don't know much about a 4-3 or 3-4 defense, so I assume that everyone has a varying degree of statistical knowledge as well.
Get past the first few paragraphs, and I think you will find an easy to understand (simplified) analysis of who the Bills will draft.
If you hate reading a lot, then read the summary, evaluation, and conclusion. It saves time and headaches!
For Statistic Guys & Non-Stat Guys...A Brief Background of the Study
Background: I'm in a graduate level statistical analysis class, and I chose the NFL Draft as my topic. I took 30 draft sites (considered Pro or Media) by the Hail Redskins site that keeps track of all the mock drafts. In order to perform the analysis, I used both descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode, and range) and inferential statistics (Standard Deviation, z-scores, t-scores, and ANOVA analysis) in order to predict the likelihood of the Bills drafting a particular player.
Sites Chosen: I isolated these 15 sites so that they would be automatically included. Part of my theory is that media/professional sites are more likely to have less bias. I won't go into those details, but I didn't want a site by a Bills Fan or a Raiders Fan. In theory, media people and "professional" mock draft people probably know a little bit more! The other 15 sites were selected through a stratified sample. I've not included the additional 15 sites for space purposes.
-
Scoutsnotebook.com, Football Expert, Signature Sports, FF Toolbox, Draft Season, Universal Draft, Draft Season, Draft Zoo, Draft Tek, NFL Draft Dog, Pro Football Talk, Football's Future, The Huddle Report, Walter Football, ESPN Mock Draft Mel Kiper/Todd McShay (March 2010)
Results of 19 Players Projected as 1st Round Picks by these 30 Sites (Simplified Results) If you are a statistics guru, send me an e-mail at loganandkara@gmail.com and I will give you all the results.
The 19 Players Chosen
-
Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Okung, Bulaga, Trent Williams, Haden, Campbell, Berry, McClain, Bryant, Pierre-Paul, Spiller, Morgan, A. Davis, Dan Williams, Graham, Iupati, Clausen
Mean Results (Sum of all the site's placement of a player in the draft divided by the 30 sites)
Results:
#1. Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Okung, and Berry will not be available to us. There is about a 5% chance that one of them will fall to the Bills at #9.
#2. These players based on mean averages of the 30 sites are the most likely to be available at the #9 spot. In other words, these are the best players who have the highest chances of being available for the Bills to draft. Please keep in mind that if you like Iupati, Anthony Davis, or Bruce Campbell, this is okay. These results are according to the 30 sites, not personal preferences. -
Haden, McClain, Paul, Morgan, Bryant, Spiller, Bulaga, Clausen (In that order)
What this Means in simple terms
Based on statistics, we can stop dreaming about Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Okung, and Berry. If the 30 sites are accurate in rating a player's ability, the best players according to probability available to the Bills will be Haden, McClain, Paul, Morgan, Bryant, Spiller, and Bulaga, Clausen (See Below). Otherwise, the other players, Trent Williams, Dan Williams, Anthony Davis, Graham, Iupati, Campbell will be available after the 9th pick.
-
Haden (95% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
McClain (about 88% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
Paul (About 85% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
Morgan (About 84% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
Spiller (About a 80% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
Bryant (About a 70% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
Bulaga (About a 52% chance he'll be available at #9)
-
Clausen (About a 40% chance he'll be available at #9)
Other Results: Mode & Range (The most frequently occuring #. I added the second most frequent # just for informational purposes. The second # isn't a Mode. It is just information. The range goes from the highest draft slot to the lowest rated draft slot by the 30 sites)
Bradford: #1, #4 (Mode) 1-6 (Range)
Suh: #2, #3 (Mode) 1-3 (Range)
McCoy #3, #2 (Mode) 2-6 (Range)
Okung #4, #5 (Mode) 2-5 (Range)
Bulaga #5 & #9 (Mode) 4-14 (Range)
Trent Williams #13, #6 (Mode) 6-23 (Range)
Haden #7, #10 (Mode) 5-17 (Range)
Campbell #8, #23 (Mode) 8-27 (Range)
Berry #5, #6 (Mode) 3-9 (Range)
McClain #15, #11 (Mode) 7-25 (Range)
Bryant #11, #12 (Mode) 5-27 (Range)
Paul #10, #12 (Mode) 8-32 (Range)
Spiller #14, #17 (Mode) 10-23 (Range)
Morgan #16, #14 (Mode) 8-16 (Range)
A. Davis #13, #23 (Mode) 9-23 (Range)
D. Williams #20, #28 (Mode) 11-32 (Range)
Graham #19, #26 (Mode) 16-26 (Range)
Iupati #18, #21 (Mode) 11-27 (Range)
Clausen #9, #14 (Mode) 4-29)
What This Means
Clausen and Bulaga are the most frequently favored players according to the Mode. The next most favored guy for the Bills to draft is Anthony Davis.
Summary
1. Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Berry, and Okung are a pipedream
2. If we believe in the Best Player Available Philosophy, then the Bills will be looking at at least four of these seven (7) players come draft time. (Haden, McClain, Paul, Morgan, Spiller, Bulaga, and Clausen). These would be the "best" players available. Haden, McClain, Paul, and Morgan are the most likely statistically to still be available at #9 because Bulaga and Clausen both have enough predictions that statisically they have a better chance of going before #9.
3. If the Bills are going for positional need and talent, then the Bills should be drafting Bulaga or Clausen. After that it depends on how someone personally thinks Morgan, Paul, or McClain would fit into a 3-4 defense.
Evaluation:
Obviously, there could be a run on OT's that would be hard to statistically measure. But, if statistically analysis provides in insight it is this information:
1. OT's- Okung will be gone by #9. Bulaga has a 52% chance of being available at #9. Campbell has a 58% chance of being available (The Raiders alter this statistic significantly). If the Bills like A. Davis or Trent Williams it is at least 80% likely that either will be available.
2. NT-Dan Williams won't go higher than #11 out of 30 sites. He is most likely going to be available at #20, or #28 by the Mode. By the Mean average, he'll be available between #17-#18. In other words, if NT is the priority, then if the Bills trade back to #17 there is still a 80%+ chance Dan Williams will be there in the 1st Round.
3. ILB/OLB/DE Paul & McClain should be available at #9. Morgan would be available too. All three are rated pretty close by Mean average availability. If the Bills are interested, then they take the best player to fit their 3-4 system. Personally, I would take Morgan. Graham can be had by #16-#19, if this is the Bills choice to move back.
4. QB- Bradford won't be available. Clausen is about 40% likely to be available. In other words, if the Bills are sold on him, then he is the best player with a reasonable probability of being available.
5. WR/RB/G Spiller and Bryant are undeniably talented. Both will be available but don't trade down past #14; otherwise, both of them will statistically be gone. Iupati will be available at #9, but he would be a reach. The Bills can trade back to #17 and still have a 90% chance of drafting him.
Conclusion:
If the Bills don't like what is in front of them at #9, then there are a lot of talented players including Dan Williams, Iupati, Brandon Graham, and one of the following: Trent Williams, Bruce Campbell, or Antony Davis available at #17.
-
Scoutsnotebook.com, Football Expert, Signature Sports, FF Toolbox, Draft Season, Universal Draft, Draft Season, Draft Zoo, Draft Tek, NFL Draft Dog, Pro Football Talk, Football's Future, The Huddle Report, Walter Football, ESPN Mock Draft Mel Kiper/Todd McShay (March 2010)
-
Thanks for the thoughts.
Yes...I like the additions of Davis and Edwards, but I know the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 must take several years with coaching, free agency, and the draft.
For those that shared that a 4-4 could be used in some situations, this seems to make sense.
-
It has been discussed on this board about the challenges and changes that are necessary to make a switch back to the 3-4. I've read some websites that explain how each of these defenses generally operate; however, I'm wondering if there is a 4-4 defense (or some version of it in the NFL)?
The Bills hadn't the most difficult time stopping the run last year. Wouldn't it make sense to have an 8th player in the "box?". I know that is usually a safety's responsibility, but what if the Bills had four defensive lineman and four linebackers to take away the run?
This leaves the Bills will McGee, McKelvin, and Byrd in the secondary. Of course, on general passing down situations, the Bills could take away one of the defensive lineman/linebackers and add a safety or nickel corner in such situations. The secondary is the strongest part of the "D." In theory, we should be able to leave those guys on an island more and slow down the run game and the short passing game over the middle with a 4-4 defense.
I believe the Bills should have their strongest 11 players on the field to make plays. With that in mind, here would be my 4-4 defense.
LDE Marcus Stroud
DT Kyle Williams
NT Mt. Cody or Cam Thomas (2nd Round)
RDE Dwan Edwards/Spencer Johnson on occasion
OLB Kawika Mitchell
ILB POZ
ILB Davis
OLB Maybin (3rd down passing situations go with Ellison or Scott, or a 3rd round LB who is better at coverage skills like Eric Norwood)
CB McGee
CB McKelvin
Safety-Byrd
It just seems like we have too many guys that don't fit a 3-4 or a weren't great at a 4-3 that are still on the roster (Schobel, Kelsay, Ellis). These guys aren't LB's either.
If the run is our biggest problem, let's add another lineman to plug the holes.
Is there a 4-4 defense? If not, is it realistic for the Bills to have a package like this? After all, considering the team hasn't been in the playoffs 10 years, I think even the idea of a 4-4 defense is worth a look.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
-
Like many others who have commented, I'm not opposed to Dan Williams. I'm just opposed to him at #9.
-
I vote off Ryan Mathews in Round 1. He is a good player, but we have Jackson and there is no need for him unless we get rid of Lynch.
I vote off Dexter McCluster in Round 2. Sure, he is fast, but he is small. We have enough kick returners and we have a gadget player like him in Parrish. Granted, McCluster is better.
-
if Bulaga or T Williams is still there at 9, bills better grab them.
Bulaga yes, Williams, no.
Williams is talented but lazy. Does that not sound like another Williams we had on the other side of the line?
-
I love kyle williams. He is a force in the tampa 2. Too small to play NT, and not fast enough to play DE. I think the Colts could realy use him and were willing to part with a 4th (?) for McCargo back in '08. This would be a very important piece of the defensive puzzle for the Colts and a fair trade if we swap a few latter round picks. Williams, our 3rd and a 6th for Colts 1st and third. Colts get a great player for their system, and we get an excellent draft pick to use on a NT or maybe LB.
Dude,
I don't mean to be cynical or rude, but Kyle Williams is not worth a 1st round pick in a trade. The Colts aren't going to part with a 1st and 3rd for a higher round 3 and a 6th round pick.
I wish it were so, but there are only a small percentage of players that a team would trade a 1st round pick for now, and Kyle Williams isn't one of them. Yes, he's talented and he no longer fits the Bills 4-3 defense, but I'd be ecstastic if a team gave us a 3rd for Williams.
That is much more realistic
Bills entertain 6 prospects on Monday
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yikes...the only two worth looking at are Okung (won't be available) and Charle Brown (will be available between 15-45). I've heard he is moving up draft boards...whatever that means any way.