AKC

What's worthless is the opinions of those who have staked their children's lives on the Bill's drafting a bad WR with the 11 pick this year. Others are able to see that the trends among the Super Bowl Teams of recent years for the past 7 drafts favor D over O and DL over WR- and that's by a huge margin. Now if you want to talk about the guys who love WRs, there's Detroit- you want their numbers?

Go ahead and put your own time in- for me, my interest runs into why the good teams draft better than the Bills. I not inclined to put more time in proving how Atlanta and Cleveland approach it. If you want to nominate someone who hasn't joined your "Draft The Next Koren Robinson" campaign, I'll be happy to forward the spreadsheet with formulas intact and they can do the balance of the league. The numbers I've seen so far suggest it will just continue to confirm that the best teams draft D over O, and DL over WR.

I picked the past 7 draft seasons- because I'm actually trying to see how the best teams today stay at the top. Tell me what the "non-cherry picker" studies- the 1964 draft? Only the 2003? What in the world is "Cherry Picking" about the most pertinent (last 7) drafts in determining how good teams today got there? OK, you have no answer for that. I took the first two rounds. Tell me what the "non-cherry picker" goes for here- do you study the 3rd and 6th? No, I studied the top of the draft and clearly defined it in my methodology and title- but you'll have no answer for that either. Cherry picking- I'll take that to mean you have virtually no way to respond to the fact that all your whining for the Bill's top reach for a WR is something that the numbers prove is something far less likely to happen to a good team than a bad one. The numbers don't lie.

How about- "Lee Evans and a bunch of guys who will likely beat out any WR we could draft at #11". BU QB (3rd-5th) Utility OL (3-5th) Looks like we can still do what the best teams do- consider the best D talent at the top of the draft board.

The methodolgy is fully broken down. A 5th grade math student could follow it. I recognize it doesn't fit your fantasies about what teams do early, but these are the facts based upon a mathematical study framed in what I believe to be the most reasonable time frame for determining what Buffalo and Detroit are doing in the draft while the best teams stay on top (last 7 drafts, last 5 playoff years). Indy has a cumulative score of 68 at the WR position over the past 7 drafts, and a cumulative score of 77 at DL. That means their ratio of DL to WR fits the winning model of 88% of the Super Bowl teams over the past 5 years. As to how each team does it, the formula's in a spreadsheet that won't take to well to this format but you asked for it- Giants Colts Steelers Patriots* DL 82 0.21 DL 77 0.24 DL 46 0.11 DL 157 0.35 DB 110 0.28 DB 76 0.24 DB 76 0.19 DB 70 0.16 WR 54 0.14 WR 68 0.21 WR 43 0.11 WR 50 0.11 TE 51 0.13 TE 41 0.13 TE 35 0.09 TE 77 0.17 LB 0.00 LB 0.00 LB 114 0.28 LB 0.00 OL 31 0.08 OL 23 0.07 OL 35 0.09 OL 50 0.11 RB 0.00 RB 35 0.11 RB 0.00 RB 44 0.10 QB 61 0.16 QB 0.00 QB 54 0.13 QB 0.00 Total 389 320 403 448 Bears Seahawks Eagles Panthers DL 123 0.26 DL 49 0.13 DL 143 0.37 DL 84 0.19 DB 61 0.13 DB 123 0.32 DB 52 0.14 DB 95 0.21 WR 83 0.18 WR 56 0.15 WR 70 0.18 WR 23 0.05 TE 34 0.07 TE 37 0.10 TE 4 0.01 TE 0.00 LB 0.00 LB 20 0.05 LB 12 0.03 LB 94 0.21 OL 36 0.08 OL 87 0.23 OL 75 0.19 OL 72 0.16 RB 88 0.19 RB 11 0.03 RB 0.00 RB 80 0.18 QB 43 0.09 QB 0.00 QB 29 0.08 QB 0.00 468 383 385 448 Just because you've gotten your panties in a bunch as the leader of the "Draft the new Josh Reed at 11" Bandwagon doesn't mean you should be lying about other poster's history.

Studying the drafting trends of the way Super Bowl teams approach the Top of the Draft versus the Buffalo Bills (one of only 4 teams in the NFL to have missed the playoffs this Millennium) may offer some insight into why we’ve been one of the consistently bad teams in the league for an extended period of time. Using the draft records of Super Bowl teams allows a look into how those teams have “budgeted” at specific positions at the Top of the Draft. This study does not establish whether these Positional Budgeting Trends are a conscious strategy on the part of all or any of the teams in the study, but the trends do represent contrasts between the players Super Bowl teams target at the Top of the Draft versus the positions the Buffalo Bills have been drafting. The methodology used for the study follows the primary trending results. A comparison of Super Bowl Draft Budgets versus the Bills looks like this: Super Bowl Teams: Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats*, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers: % of Draft Top of the Budget by Position: Super Bowl Teams DL 23% DB 21% WR 14% OL 12% TE 9% RB 8% LB 7% QB 6% Bills DL 16% DB 20% WR 18% OL 12% TE 0% RB 20% LB 6% QB 8% A few substantial differences in tendencies: Buffalo has used 59% of its draft budget in the study period for Offensive players, while the Super Bowl Team Draft Budgets favor Defensive selections more often than Offensive. Buffalo has “outspent” the Super Bowl teams at RB and WR while “under spending” them at TE and DL. This makes the following areas those in which Buffalo most widely bucks the Top of the Draft Trends of Super Bowl teams: A) Bills have a higher Top of the Draft spend on Offense than Defense, contrary to the trend with Super Bowl teams B) Bills have no TE selection at the top, whereas all but one Super Bowl team has spent a portion of their Top of the Draft Budget on the position. C) Bills have spent a higher ratio of their budget on WRs versus DL, bucking the Super Bowl team trend of loading up on DL at the Top of the Draft Every Super Bowl team except the Seahawks has a higher DL spend than they do at WR. The DL/WR ratio favoring the DL is common among 87.5% of the Super Bowl Teams. Buffalo is already out of balance on this trend, and a selection of a WR with the #11 pick this season would put us at a nearly 1:2 DL/WR ratio, a stark contrast to the almost 2:1 ratio favored by the Super Bowl Teams on average. (The ratio favoring DL over WRs is also a trait of recent playoff teams like the Cowboys, the Chargers and the Packers). Every Super Bowl Team except the Panthers has a Top of the Draft investment in the TE position except the Carolina Panthers. The Bills have none. Super Bowl teams are spending over 23%- or almost a quarter of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%. In order to compile usable information for the study, the following reasonable stipulations were adopted in order to establish a study group and time window: 1) Top of the Draft- This is represented by the first two rounds. The players selected in these two rounds represent the prospects that NFL teams have concluded are the best talent entering the league from college each season. 2) Draft Budgeting- To establish a position by position numerical score for each team, the study uses the sum of the specific draft choices in which each team selected players at each position during those first two rounds. In order to end up with a highest to lowest sum, the selections were counted inversely. Since there are 32 team picks in each round each of the first 64 picks is assigned the inverse of its position, with draft pick #1 being given a numerical score of 64 points, draft pick #2 counting for 63, etc. 3) Compensatory picks- Compensatory picks following the 64th pick of the draft were counted as 1 point in each case. 4) In establishing a window to study successful draft budgeting, the average number of years first round draft picks average playing for their original team (6-7) was used. The past 7 drafts were those considered. 5) “Super Bowl Teams” will be NFL teams who have won their Conference Championships over the past 5 seasons. This allows the Super Bowl rosters to have two mature draft classes entering the study and limits teams declining from bad contemporary drafting over the study window like the Super Bowl Raiders following the 2002 NFL Season. 6) Positions- Positions are defined by: DL, DB, WR, OL, TE, RB, LB and QB. 7) Percentages- Percentages are carried to the closest whole number.

Are you saying that the Kennedy Idiots aren't running the United States?

I always got the biggest kick out of the fact that even the Kennedy stalwarts at the Chappaquiddick rental that night reported that Teddy came dripping wet to them, cognizantly told them Kopechne was in the car under water, and when the older guys who worked for John ran to dive and save the girl, Teddy swam off to P-Town and made a point to establish an alibi with the night manager of the hotel he was booked in.

With the good news being that based upon the poll results, 85% of Bill's fans are not as mad as Hatters.

The original post is about trends and teams with long term success- not how they did in 2007; how they did over the stretch while we've been awful. So try very hard to focus your attention on the premise of the first post- As I said, I'll even give you the drifting that you've done from my original study of DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've expanded and combined that into "DBs and WRS vs. DL", a complete bastardization of the original. You've expanded to the complete first round instead of the top of the first round where the Bill's select this year, the measure I used. You've drifted and amended the equation to try and fit your perception, and even then your numbers don't work: There are 7.05 of your "combo" players (WR/DB) to every 3.5 DL on their respective plays. This is a ratio of over 2:1 of the players you have decided should be measured over the DL, another measure you picked in contrast to the orginal measure of DTs. So we'll use your measures, weighted for the number of those players who are on the field during their respective specialty's plays on average. That means that using your own equation, the following teams all have drafted heavier in DL than "combo" on a per player on the field average: Pats* Packers Giants Jags Philly Steelers Even Up: Cowboys More draft equity in Dib's "Combo" Players: Dolphins Raiders Bills Detroit Falcons Arizona If you can't look at the teams named above and begin to recognize that the teams in the bottom who love "combo" players in the first round wouldn't be as desirable to follow in personnel strategy versus the teams in the top who put more draft equity into their DLines , then I think we'll find agreement in one thing you say- that there's an idiot in this string! In fact, I'd go so far as to double down on that and put my money on there being a couple ;-)

I'm sure that is a toungue in cheek response, but the basis is the difference in schemes and offensive sets used on average per down.

My original post used numbers regarding DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've tried to accomodate your opinion by combining WRs and DBs to make them a single quantification, which as I've pointed out makes no sense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the game. Let me once more show you how your combining WRs and DBs as some block versus DL is bad math- An NFL defense averages using 3.5 Defensive linemen on any defensive play. An NFL defense averages using 4.3 DBs on any defensive play. An NFL offense averages using 2.75 WRs on any offensive play. Your bad math of combining the WRs and DBs when the original post in no way supports that means that you are now comparing the weight of 3.5 players on the field per respective (in this case defensive) play against a combined weight of 7.05 players on the field per respective play in team needs for the combination of WRs and DBs. You've fabricated the equation based upon your desire to support your argument, but even then the facts are not in your favor. You've added WRs and DBs to come out with a "combo" number. We know that the "combo" provides virtually twice the number of players on the field at any one time versus the DL number, but let's give your bad math a run to see how it works: We've been using the post 2000 draft picks. You've selected the first round, my original study was of the top 15 picks since we're drafting in the top half of the draft this year. But we'll use your equation instead of mine. The bottom teams: Buffalo 3 "combo" players and 1 DL Detroit 4 "combo" players and 0 DL Arizona 3 "combo" and 1 DL Raiders 5 combo and 0 DL Those are bottom feeders- bad teams with bad drafting patterns and most important, bad results. This is using your equation, not mine. How about the Super Bowl teams? Pats* 3 DL and 1 "combo" player Giants 2 DL 2 "combo" players Chicago 2 DL and 1 combo Philly 3 DL and 1 combo You are using bad math when you try to somehow claim the Giants drafting of 2 DL versus 2 combo players supports your argument (tie)- the reality is that the Giants as a 4-3 team will be using twice as many of your "combo" players on offense and defense than they will DL, meaning that they drafted twice as many DL players versus "combo" players when weighted for the total players on the field for their respective specialties. This doesn't seem that difficult to understand- if you're still struggling with it tell me what it is you don't get about the combination of DBs and WRs having double the numbers on average playing for a team in their offenses on the field at any time. Indy is an acknowledged exception with 3 combo and 1 DL, but their strength of offense is also an accepted exception to the NFL rule- occasionally a better offensive team wins a Super Bowl, but far more often it's the best defensive teams in the hunt every year. Pittsburgh has 2 combo and 1 DL, but playing in a 3-4, even that is weighted towards the DLine since they would use more than twice the combo players on the field as DL on their respective plays. So I don't know how you are coming up with those false "good teams/bad teams" statements- clearly the bad teams above have focused on the "combo" players while the Super Bowl teams above have put a higher premium on drafting DL. Again, I used DT versus either WR or CB, which has even more significant numbers, but using your misinterpetration of DL versus "combo" numbers, the equity used on DL among the better teams is still far higher among the better teams. Bottom line is we're a bad team for good reason- we don't draft like the good teams; vey specifically, our drafts look more like the Lions or Raiders drafts when it comes to "combo" versus DL players.

C'mon now Dibs- I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. An NFL team starts 6 or 7 WR/DBs every game. Some teams you're pointing to only start 3 DLinemen. The math has to do with the equity stake the better teams put on the positions from a "player on the field/total draft equity for rostered players at teh position" standpoint. Dave is among those who understand that substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB- you should be a little leery of jumping into the argument with Steely Dan who says that the Titans drafting offers us nothing to learn because during the span since they played in the Super Bowl and have appeared 3 additional times in the playoffs, they also had a 3 win season. Oh to trade our 0-7 record of playoff appearances over that span for a Super Bowl and 3 other playoff trips!

I guess that would make them the very first "above average” in league history who were: Dead last in yards allowed. Dead last in 3rd downs allowed. Next to last in sacks per pass play faced. Next to last in sack yardage. The good news might be that they were 4th in total tackles- putting them in the same company as Detroit, the Jets and the 49ers.

My first memory of him is going coast to coast on a KR.

Based upon the quality/depth relationship I've been exploring among the rest of the league, I see our interior D rotation right now in the bottom 10 of the NFL. The unknowns on both of our starters just can't be projected to be "premium" in either case when all indications are that neither of them in 2008 will be an elite DT in the NFL. We play against teams with 2-3 elite DTs, and we are likely to recognize somewhere about week 5 that we don't have even 1. Maybe I'm a pessimist. We definitely disagree here. I believe any team with the 31st ranked defense in the league will not get better as a team until that fatal NFL flaw is addressed. All the WR/TE/RB/QBs available in the first round of any draft will make no effective difference until the defense is addressed. Adding one former Pro Bowler to our DLine who missed half his teams snaps in 2007 and 30% of his team's snaps the year before doesn't offer me the level of confidence you are drawing from the same aquisition. I don't think I'll get much disagreement from anyone objective that on the average, most draft analysts have the best WR in the draft at about 18-22. And in many of those the top WR in their analysis is not a greater than 6 foot prospect. There's the phenomenon that also drives analysts to put a position player up higher where his position is actually thin at the top of the draft, basically "I can't submit this Top 50 players list without a ____" in the first round. So there's the likelihood that most NFL teams have WRs this year starting no higher than we'll say 18th. Now let's look at the blessing of an 11 pick. What's great about the pick is that almost surely there will be a player we picked in the top 5 overall who is still there when we get to 11. Now it might be that that player is an Olineman or DE, etc.- but the chances are probably better than not that the Bills will have the option at the 11 spot to grab someone who didn't fit the first 10 teams or was graded higher by us. An overall top 5 pick according to our Board. And if the decision is between an overall top 5 pick, and a WR we likely have at least 17 guys in front of, it seems like the use of the resources are so much more beneficial in the long run to take the best player in most cases that the chances of a WR being taken in this scenario by a well managed football team are virtually nil. I don't find your conclusion that drafting a WR might not be "the end of the world" to be unreasonable. I also don't think it's unreasonable to reach the conclusion that taking a WR at 11 might, on the other hand, turn out to be another of the types of personnel blunders that helps to keep a bad team on the bottom.

OK, switch it up: It's the 11 pick and you're up. Still available is a player the Bill's had as #2 overall in the draft, an OLineman. That OLineman is 17 players better on the Bill's draft board than the highest rated WR at 19. Your selection?

Most Draft analysts don't show a WR in their "Top Player" list until about pick 20 this year. If you'd prefer to answer the question using #20 as the position on our draftboard of the first WR, feel free to offer your selection.

Yes Dave, my proposition has been that most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine. The teams with the high priority at the position include many of the recent Super Bowl teams- Giants, Pats*, Bears, Philly, Carolina, Ravens. Even a 3-4 D like Pitt has a high priority on quality and depth on their DL. Whan you look at the other side of the coin, the bottom feeding teams like the Bills and the Lions, there is less high draft equity spent on the DLine than among the above. And you're right, a team that's built a strong DLine like the Pats* have the luxury of going out and selecting other positions today because they've used all that early draft equity (3 first round DTs), and in their rotation of 6 DLinemen who play in their interior they set a measure IMO for how to approach building a strong team. None of this means a team should reach for DL- just like I wouldn't support reaching for a WR early in this draft. I think reaching for need is one of the things that keeps the bad teams bad. There's more than one way to build a football team. There's the way the Lions and Bills do it and the way the Giants and Pats* do it. I'd like the Bills to start paying attention to the way the better teams do it versus approaching it like the bad teams. One of the common threads among the good teams is building a quality and depth at DT. You've pitched our current DT rotation as both, I believe it's not yet either.

So in your opinion there's nothing to be gained by considering the way a franchise that has been in the playoffs 3 of the past 7 years got there? You'll have to excuse me if I disregard every position you ever take on this board that pertains to the game of football.

The Tennessee Titans have been to the Playoffs 3 times since the Bills last went, and have had one of the league's top Defenses for that whole period. But if I understand your idiotic position, that's not a sign that they've been drafting better than us !?!?!? You are either completely dishonest or you missed the little bus that picks you up for school.

Let me just make sure- Brandon, you're on board with ignoring our draft board even if it shows we're pushing aside 16 better football players to take a Wide Receiver at 11; your belief is that would be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills in 2008?

You sir, may be the most honest among the very exclusive membership of the Wild Receivers Club.

USA Today has had a large draft contingent for many years. This year, their first WR over 6 foot is rated #22 on their Board. That is in line with many other services. Why would it be "loaded" to imagine our draft board might not have the first big WR at 27? Or if we change the poll to show the WR at 22- do you really think the results are going to magically change to fans reaching for a #22 player with the #11 pick?

Play the GM game in this hypothetical situation- or maybe not so hypothetical if most of the Draft Services are to be believed. Or if you have another option considering you must pick at 11 and you can't edit the Draft Board.