Ramius

Your study doesnt take into account teams that spend high picks on the DL and are unsuccessful, such as KC and houston. The simplest reason you ignore these facts is because they dont fit your little rant.

And my statistical study says that the Bills havent been as good as the "top teams" because they draft too many players that come from colleges with the word "state" in their name. They drafted 16 since 2001, and the "top teams" average 11. My study and yours are eerily similar. Both of us took a loose correlation, ignored opposing data points, and passed it off as "fundamental statistics."

And therein lies the problem. For your "study" to be valid, you need to prove that the reason the above teams got to the super bowl was because they spent "high draft equity" on the DL. The only way to prove that drafting DL = super bowl is to show that the rest of the league doesnt draft DL at the same rate as the super bowl teams, which you havent done. You have also conveniently ignored the examples made of KC and Houston, both teams who has similar "draft equity" spent on the DL and WRs, but neither of them. All you are doing is finding a simple correlation, incorrectly assuming that there is direct causality, and then ignoring the data points that refute your point and dont fit your little "system."

It was a few years back. he trashed the bills fromt office for releasing those players, basically saying them were sure-fire pro-bowlers and the bills front office was a bunch of idiots. As we see now, both of them are tearing it up in tennessee. LaDumbass is also very fond of saying that tall WRs suck because they are tall. I'm shocked he's not advocating the Bills drafting DeSean Jackson. EDIT: and if you back up your opinion with any stats, links, etc, he'll accuse you of "parroting" In LaDumbass' mind, the onyl way to analyze football players is to watch them on TV, and only he knows how to do that. the rest of us are morons who simply parrot what we read or hear.

Remember, you are talking to a guy who thinks that justin geiseinger and eric king are pro-bowlers.

Lets see, in 2006, 1 DE had 14.5 sacks, and the other side of the line combined for 12 sacks. How many teams get 26.5 sacks from the DE position? Oh thats right. You live in a little world where all teams have 2 12-sack per year players on them. And how do you know the defender is going to be impact? You are focused on this rut that any defender taken at 11 will be a pro-bowler, while any WR taken there will be a bust, which, while completely asinine, is right up your alley of moron-think.

why havent the chiefs won a bunch of super bowls recently? they;ve spent 50% of their "draft equity" on DL? Oh wait, i know why, its because they drafted Dwayne Bowe last year, a sure fire method for failure.

Another way to improve the pass rush is to have your DEs healthy for a full season, much as they were in 2006.

Ok, i used AKC's "system" exactly as he specified, and got this for kansas city: Chiefs DL 166 0.50 DB 11 0.03 WR 42 0.13 TE 4 0.01 LB 68 0.21 OL 0.00 RB 38 0.12 QB 0.00 tot 329 The chiefs spent 50% of their "draft equity" on DL, with only 13% on WR. With such a high ratio, and a high % of DL picks, the onyl thing left to wonder is why hasnt kansas city won 3-4 super bowls since 2001?

woohoo, look at me... i did a statistimical study, and i found out why the bills havent made the super bowl. If you look at the "top" teams from the NFL, they usually draft a limited number of players from colleges with the word "state" in their university name. Pittsburgh, ne*, the giants, and the colts average 11 draftees from schools with the word "state" since 2001. Meanwhile, buffalo has drafted 16 players from schools with the word "state" in that same timespan. The problem is that buffalo drafts waaaay too many players from schools with the word "state" in their name. If we stop this alarming trend, we'll make the super bowl! Raw data: ne* - 12 NYG - 9 Pit - 9 Indy - 15 Buffalo - 16

Your methodology isnt sound at all, because again, you have no control group as a basis for comparison. All you've done is the equivalent of finding 6 people in the US who ate an orange and are healthy, and compare that to 1 person who ate an apple and got sick. You then conclude that eating oranges is the onyl reason that people are healthy and eating apples makes people sick.

we should laud ray lewis for NOT killing people? I guess we should praise Kobe for NOT raping women in a few years.

If Kelsay and Denney aren't pass rushers, how did they combine for 12 sacks in 2006?

The difference is that i think you win by getting talented players at any position, including CB. The Bills woes this decade go far beyond simply drafting CBs*. It was more along the lines of bad overall drafting from 2002-2005, and a failure to upgrade the OL as well during that time. TD tried and tried to get by using 2nd rate upgrades along the OL. *just a quick note: we've spent more 1st/2nd round picks on the DL (4) since 2001 than we have on the secondary (2) in that same span. The problems have not come from drafting CBs, but the overall neglect of drafting the OL in the early rounds (1-3), not just the 1st, and the refusal (until 2006) to spend FA bucks on the really good OLs.

It could be that they thought their FA acquisitions addressed the OL problems, and needed secondary help. It also could be that the FO realizes that 1st CBs usually give you more bang for the buck than a high-priced FA CB. Just because you dont see this, doesnt mean that they dont.

I'd probably take 1 of these 3 guys left on the board... 1. Limmus Sweete 2. Dominik Riggins-Carter 3. Devon Tomast

Now the circle is complete. You have throw some crap to the wall, thought it stuck, and when called out on it, you put the onus on others to "disprove" your incorrect pile of crap. Your lack of a coherent or complete analysis discredits itself. Theres no need for me to do any work. I cant disprove something that doesnt exist in the first place. And, again, oyu are saying that the pats* would have been just as good if they had drafted sullivan and sims as opposed to wilfork/seymour?

So what happens when the super bowl winners are shown to be no different than the league average in drafting those positions?That means that there was some other factor at work besides "drafting DL early." Or worse yet, what happens when i find bad teams with similar %'s to the top teams. I'm sure you're able to understand the statistical inadequacies of your lahjik, however you are simply ignoring them because it refutes the limited work you've done, much as you have in the past.

So if the pats had simply drafted Ryan Sims and Jonathan Sullivan instead of seymour and wilfork, they would be just as good as they are now, because they spent high picks on the DL.

you've established nothing to compare the top teams to, so the numbers you got are meaningless. What happens if they share the same % with the bottom dwellers, or are no different than the league average? I'm not sure why you cannot grasp the idea of a complete statistical analysis. Again, please explain how the Bills, who in the last 7 years, have spent 3 high picks on WRs (1-1st, 2-2nds), have spend more picks on the DL (4, 1-1st, 3-2nds), are similar to the lions who have spent 4 top 10 picks on WRs in the last 5 years.

I'd rather take Sweed or Thomas at #11 then spend both 2nd and 3rd rounders in an effort to trade up to get one of them.

Nah, i just know bogus stats and conclusions when i see them. Just because you can twist the numbers to say one thing doesnt actually give them meaning.

I heard Johnathan Sullivan, Jimmy Kennedy, and Ryan Sims are the party co-hosts.

You havent heard of him, so he's no good? I'm guessing the Bills scouting staff has probably heard of Devin Thomas before, and perhaps even saw a game or 2 of his.

I find it cute that my thorough debunking of your garbage claims has bothered you enough that you needed to take a shot me in your draft party thread. Are you going to remove anyone that cheers a WR selection at #11?