AKC

My study is about where players are drafted, with the position of the first player in round one having a higher "equity" value than the 5th player taken in the 2nd round. If you are unable to grasp something so fundamentally critical to understanding the strategy of the best teams, it's no wonder mathematics of drafting trends would confuse you so. The methodology is sound. My study shows how the Buffalo Bills trend against recent Super Bowl teams. If you'd like to find out what the trend is for all the teams that play in the NFC West, you're free to use my methodology and perform that study. I'm pretty sure here on a Buffalo Bill's Message Boad my study of the Bill's versus the best teams in the league will be of more interest. At least to those of us who are interested in figuring out how the Bill's can improve.

I've proven that there are some trends that are visible mathematically. Namely that the Bills buck the trends of the top teams in the draft in a few areas, specifically putting more equity in offensive versus defensive players, using top equity on a TE and in the relationship between the ratio of DL spending versus WR spending. The math is perfectly sound and your inability to find a single problem with it is further evidence. You might consult anyone with a backgound in statistics, who will tell you that my math is an appropriate approach to studying the trending of draft picks by position in the first two rounds of the last 7 drafts. You on the other hand have proven nothing more than that you won't accept simple trending mathematics when the numbers contradict your instincts. I could feel sorry for you, but I've got better things to do with my time ;-) Once again, stop whining because the mathematical truth doesn't line up with your fantasy, and if you are so insistent on knowing what the trend has been with the Houston Texans, go do the math yourself! You're a model of consistency!

It'll be on the Westside- I'll get transpo set up for cheap so there won't be any driving.

As in life, those in the stands always have more to say than those on the playing field. I've invited you onto the field. I'll anxiously await the results of your "comprehensive" study ;-)

I would agree if we were talking about a statistical study- you can increase and decrease the blinders and end up discovering little if anything. But the study here is simply a trending study- it uses objective draft history and points out clear, substantial differences between the way the best teams have done it for 10 years versus the Bills. How much that trend means is up to the person considering it- I offer it for consideration and you have done that. Thanks for the reasoned response.

Now you're adding subjectivity to the math- you're assuming that there's a "light on" in every front office. Look how hard it is to get fans to recognize that better teams use more early draft equity for defensive players- what's to say 12 team's front offices aren't just as oblivious?

I've got your first- Look forward to meeting you. The Hotel is nothing more than a place to pass out- it's decked out like an Austin Powers movie- but it's truly a stumble across to/from the bar. There'll be a Bill's party Saturday night too- we'll probably get a shuttle and go to it in one vehicle.

You're hung up on subjectives- the study is based upon known numbers. There's nothing subjective- it proves that Pioli has spent 35% of his early draft investment in his DLine, 17% at TE and only 11% at WR. That's over a time when the Bills numbers are 16% DL, 0% TE and 18% WR. You don't have to agree with Pioli, you don't have to think his team is doing it right, but the numbers don't lie. What he's doing is there for anyone objective to consider, and to use that known information to consider whether the clear differences between his positional draft approach and the approach of the Bills has something to do with our W/L record against his team over those past 7 years studied.

There's a Days Inn across the street- here's a link- Days Inn Busbys!

I've offered the methodology- if you're half as smart as you play yourself off to be you can simply do the analysis you think you need. I'm concerned with how the Bills have drafted versus how the best teams do it- and that's the study I've done. It shows that we're deviating substantially from the best teams in these areas: A) We have drafted offensive talent with 58% of our available investment in rounds 1 and 2 of the past 7 drafts, while the teams who have played in the past 5 Super Bowls have used more of their draft investment in rounds 1 and 2 of the same drafts more often to draft defensive players. B) The Super Bowl teams have invested a huge percentage (9%) in Tight Ends at the top of the draft, we've invested 0%. C) The Super Bowl teams have spent nearly one quarter of their total early draft total on their DLines, while spending less than 14% at the WR position. This is a stark contrast to the Buffalo Bill's spend, which amounts to 18% at the WR postion to date and less than 16% on our DL. You don't like the numbers because they don't fit the fantasy you have about reaching for a WR this year at 11, but that doesn't change the trends. This is a mathematically mapped out trend of the top teams versus the Bills. Quit whining about the Falcons and 49ers information- if you want it use the math I outlined completely in the original post. I even offered to send my spreadsheet to anyone not a member of the "WR Reach at 11 Club" to conduct it for you. It's time for you to stojan up or let someone else in the stall.

"Bogus Stats"- meaning any you can't grasp? You didn't do to well in math if you can't figure out the simple equation used to establish draft investments of the top teams by position. The methodology is included for anyone who likes to consider tendencies, and the equation used is a perfect charting of tendencies of the Super Bowl teams versus the Bills over the past 7 drafts. I know you continue to support our "Matt Millen" draft tendencies of late, but I'd like to see a change.

Fearing what you don't understand is common among many primates. We'll keep seat warm for you even if you're cheering for a reach at WR! PM me if you need directions. Because they show Buffalo taking more draft direction from Matt Millen than the top teams in the league, and Ramius appears to find Millen's work admirable. I'll let Bob Lamb tell you where you'll find the best busts at Busbys- it's his specialty.

This year's annual Los Angeles Bill's Backers Draft Party, sponsored by a contingent of TSW alumni, takes place at 3110 Santa Monica Blvd. in Santa Monica. More details and directions on our wesbite- TSW West Draft Party You won't want to miss the action- Big Bob Lamb will once again be balancing the Hot Waitress Contest against his deft management of the Draft Board. You'll discover whether Kelly the Dog was actually raised by a feral pack of wolves. And we'll be holding the "Find The Lost Ramius Marbles" contest. The winner will recieve signed busts of Peter Warrick, Koren Robinson and Mike Williams. PM me with any questions-

If you aren't feeding the key position talent for 7 straight drafts, you sure won't be up there for long ;-)

Dude- I chose Super Bowl teams because my interest runs to discovering the trends in their drafting styles that differ from the Buffalo Bills. Those trends are: The Bills favor WRs over DL and the good teams like DL over the WR by a huge margin. The Bills favor drafting Offense and the good teams favor drafting Defense. The good teams have by a large margin used round 1 and 2 equity on the TE position- while the Bills have not. It's not hard to see- the numbers prove it- or you can do as others and pull a WR jersey over your eyes and kick and scream that it can't be true. (But it is).

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 ;-)