OCinBuffalo
-
Posts
9,102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OCinBuffalo
-
-
1 hour ago, gjv001 said:
If Rosen was in this years draft I would not be surprised that the majority of teams would have him the highest rated QB in the draft. That being said, I believe one of them would make a very good trade offer for him.
And what is your belief based on?
I swear to God...this always ends up being "let's just divide by 0, then say it's no big deal".
-
Just now, Pete said:
Did you ever take a statistics class? Just because something costs more, does not mean it's better. The larger sample size, the larger the probability of hitting a draft pick
Buddy I've been doing analytics since before it was called analytics, and before it was called business intelligence. Don't make presumptions about statistical analysis with me: you'll make yourself look like an idiot. You have been warned.
Your statement is patently false. Hitting or not on a pick(setting aside the subjective evaluation of whether a hit, is a hit) has the same probability for each pick. Having more of them does NOT effect the probability of each pick. Every casino in the world loves your understanding of "statistics".
To simplify it for you: I am not more likely to get heads when I flip a coin, if I flip it 10 times, rather than once. Hitting or not hitting on a draft pick has, as defined by you, a binary outcome: you hit or you do not hit. This means that each draft pick has a 50% chance "to hit". Drafting 7 guys that all miss, is just as likely as drafting 1 guy that hits == 50%.
Seems to me that you have some statistics class(es) to take. Hint: the draft is not bingo. Your "reasoning" is bingo-based.
-
On 4/8/2019 at 9:08 AM, Pete said:
trading two 4s, two 5ths, 6, and 7 for a 3 is Mike Ditka dumb. Perhaps dumber
Do you run an NFL team? No? Then your opinion...is irrelevant. Like I said, every single pick(s) for picks draft trade since 2012 conforms to the chart.
Do you think this is some sort of amazing mathematical coincidence? That the values and math of the draft chart just automagically happens to comport with every single draft trade for the last 6 years, perhaps more, because 6 years is all that was studied?
-
On 4/7/2019 at 7:11 PM, Dopey said:
Not trying to be a jerk, but I would burn that chart. I value two 4th's, two 5th's, a 6th and two 7th rounders more than a 3rd, even a high 3rd. I trust Beane to do better than that. Curious, who would you take with the SF pick that wuld be worth it? Someone would have to fall really far in the draft, not sure who that would be though.
Every single trade picks for picks has conformed exactly to that chart. It seems I have to have this conversation every 4 years or so...same result: teams use the chart. Like it, hate it? Irrelevant, teams use the chart...except in rare cases = Raiders getting fleeced, dumbass RG3 trade. Notice we are talking about 2 teams, the Raiders and Redskins, who have been terrible at drafting for a generation.
This thread is not about which player at what position. And what you value may be perfectly reasonable...for you. You might be able to make a convincing argument for it, and even convince other posters with it. But, it won't matter, because you/they don't run an NFL team, and, teams use the chart.
-
4 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
Sell the top pick and go with Rosen.
to who, for what?
-
2 hours ago, gjv001 said:
Support my HC by drafting Murray. Keep Rosen until someone offers a deal I can't refuse.
But what if no deal comes? This whole assumption that somebody has the large amount of assets, and are willing to trade them, for Rosen is based on what, exactly? These arguments always come down to some hypothetical "team X", and never specify what team will offer what specific assets to get Rosen.
Rather it's just "some offer" from "some team".
-
The #1 overall is perhaps the hardest pick to trade down from. Whichever value chart one consults, the only teams that have the value, this year, to move up there are #2 and maybe #3. Teams have to trade multiple #1s, and a lot more, to do it. It's a hell of a lot more realistic value-wise to trade up to #5+, than #1-4.
Thus the notion that ARZ has the choice to trade down...is most likely an illusion. There's like a 10% chance that choice exists. They can always choose to get fleeced, like the OAK did in 2013...but why? ARZ has a ton of picks today, OAK didn't then. None of SF, NYJ, or OAK need QB this year. Drafting one would create chaos for any of those 3 teams, similar to the chaos that ARZ will get for drafting Murray.
That's why I'm 40/60 on believing Murray at #1 today. I'm moving towards: this is all smoke generated by ARZ to draw in OAK. Doubly so because of what Rosen would cost. You need 2 teams to trade. But, you only need 1 idiot team out of 31 to fleece, and hey, weren't talking OAK drafting here. Rosen should cost a team a low 1, high 2, another 2, and a player or a 3 as well. Why? 85% chance Rosen is a franchise QB: he's got NFL film to prove it. Teams routinely spend 2 #1s+ for the chance to draft a guy who has an unknown chance of being a franchise QB. Rosen is a known entity. OAK has the pieces to trade up to draft Murray, or trade for Rosen...which makes me think this whole think is about F'ing with OAK's head.
In fact, this is starting to sound like RG3/Manziel all over again. Can't wait for somebody to tell me "The league is changing and you just don't understand that!" as the reason their bad idea...is unconvincing. The league isn't changing: would you rather have Josh Allen run a QB keeper/draw, or Kyler Murray?
-
3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
It depends on who the player himself is but if they got the corner out of Clemson, Mullen, at #40 I would be more than okay with that pick.
See this is when we get into player, and I don't really care about the player, until he gets drafted. I NEVER watch college football, thus I can be 100% objective on draft picks. It lets me distinguish argument from homerism/bias.
-
2 minutes ago, Dopey said:
7 picks for a 3rd?!? I think my math is right.
The value chart link is above. Feel free to check my work. But I'm telling you right now, it's 75. And 75 = the value of SF's #3 pick. So, yeah, teams think that our particular 7 picks are worth that 1 3rd.
-
18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
Cockrell actually played a year for us. Rex cut him because he was drafted to play more zone and Rex only wanted to play cover 0 man. Which worked out so well for us.
In fairness I think they have made some good moves at corner in FA. White, Wallace, Kevin Johnson, EJ Gaines, Taron Johnson looks a hell of a lot stronger than last year's group.
I'd try and draft a corner somewhere in the draft every year though. It is a passing league.
That's right. Rex cut him.
I'm not talking the last 20 days, or even the last year. I'm talking about the sheer idiocy of doing practically nothing to make sure we cover all 3 WRs/TEs the Patriots have have been throwing to for a decade. I'm also talking about the fact that the Patriots tend to draft O lineman in the 3rd round, CBs in the 2nd, DL and LB in the 1st....and we seem incapable of learning from that simple model. IF we take a CB in the 2nd round this year...what are the chances the same old clowns will be howling? I mean, at what point, after 10 years, does one learn? Especially when one can see the results of the correct approach vs. the incorrect, 2 times a season, for 10 in a row?
-
The linked articles tell us that teams don't ever use unqualified BPA. Nope. They may start with best player, and put players into pools, but then, they qualify and prioritize within each pool based on need.
This doesn't mean that they forget about best player. They still group people by that to start...which is why, given the OP's scenario, the Bills would take the CB or a S if he's in the highest remaining best player pool, than the O lineman whose in a lower pool, but fills a need better.
I think a "reach" happens when a team starts to get nervous about need...especially after a run at a certain position happens, and they think there's going to be another run at a different position, that will conclude before they have a chance to make their next pick. So, to get ahead of that run, they reach now.
-
1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:
I don't disagree with your point, but some serious disrespect to the Broncos in leaving them out. Having Demarcus Ware and Von Miller certainly helped them.
Hey I agree I left them out, but I was just rattling off examples. I didn't realize I had to respect the Broncos here.
-
10 minutes ago, artmalibu said:
All theses plans to monkeyF$#$ around with out mention to taking a great player who is available. No reason to trade out of #9 if there is a special player on the board. Using some later picks to to move up is not a bad idea tho.
Fine then package all of 4-7 and move up to SF's #3. Done.
-
Just now, LSHMEAB said:
Unless you don't consider the SuperBowl the playoffs, the Giants also beat Tom Brady twice. They did so by generating pressure with the front four, which is the key to stopping that Pats machine. Corner has been a strength for the Bills over the last 5 years or so.
What the heck? You mean like last year when we had one UDFA or another starting for most of the season, and let now-traded Tanehill lead a comeback on us(I was at the game)? At some point posters are going to realize that we don't have 2 starting CBs. We have 4. Then and only then, will they realize that we need backups for 4 guys, and not 2.
12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:No love for the Broncos? Do the Giants count? Getting pressure with rushing only four also seems important.
Who were the Broncos CBs?
Way to make my point for me.
The Giants had an incredible line. No doubt about that. But putting together that kind of a line is a hell of a lot harder than putting together 6 CBs who are above average, and we need 6: 4 to play and 2 reserves. Pressure is a hell of a lot easier when guys are covered for 3 seconds. Defense is a team game. Or, have you never heard of a "coverage sack"?
-
1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:
So in a nutshell; Cutting Russ Cockrell was a fatal blow to the Bills franchise and corner has been a huge weakness since 2014. Gotcha.
We play in Tom Brady's division. The ONLY teams that have beaten Brady 2 or more times in the playoffs: teams who have the BEST secondaries in the NLF = Jets and Ravens. Why is this so hard to comprehend? We play nickel on 60+% of our snaps. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Nickel means 3-4 CBs on the field, at the same time. Again, comprehension, please.
"We have a great CB named (insert the 1 decent guy we have had for the last 10 years of Patriots winning the division) on the team, why do you say we need another one?" Oh, I don't know, perhaps because Brady throws at the other 2 guys who aren't being covered by the other CBs on the team, most of the time?
-
1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:
I am wondering if it would not be smart to take these latter round picks and trade them for higher round picks in the next draft.
The thing is.......we have been doing ok with latter round picks.......
There is always the Patriot approach: you start with the assumption that 5-7th picks are lottery tickets only. So, you offer a higher pick for a player, and a 7th. You keep the same number of lottery tickets, but, you get a proven role player. Doubly so if they guy is in his last year of his contract. The team thinks they are getting over, when actually, you are ensuring that you only rent a player for a year, then don't re-sign him, and viola: more compensatory pick value to add to your bottom line.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
He wants to trade up responsibly using the updated draft chart because later round picks are usually a waste. I think.
Wrong. I actually want to trade down first, then trade up later. It's all in the tl;dr.
-
3 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:
Just have a normal draft... maybe use that extra 4th and 5th to make a minor trade up if you can...
If the extra picks don’t make the team then so be it.
Yeah, you can say that now. Then after cuts in September? We'll see if you're around to tell everybody here it's all NBD.
-
How about my favorite from this board: leading up to the 2006 season, the notion that if we just got rid of Rian Lindell, all our f'ing troubles were over, dude.
-
1 minute ago, BuffaloButt said:
I'll respond after someone else summarizes this in one sentence! Thanks!!?
Um See the tl;dr? Do I need to explain it for you?
-
1
-
-
First, other threads are for discussing which player at what pick. This thread is about moving around the board to gain the right value for the Bills. There's been a premise floating around this board that I think is as accurate as it is troublesome: The Bills have too many draft picks this year(10), therefore, we may end up drafting people that don't make the team: waste our capital.
--
tl;dr: To avoid waste, trade down with the Skins(Rd 1) then back up with ARZ or SF(Rd 3). We shed all our 4-7 rd picks for their high 3rd and either: (ARZ) keep our 6th, or (SF) get their 6th and keep our last 7th. We can stay put and get SF 3rd by shedding 4-7. This squares with the new value chart, and gives us 4 picks in top 3 rounds. Tanking teams might make bad trade up deals to us this year, to ensure they suck = get their QB next year + 1 sure bet player this year. Full explanations below.
--
We've been through this before in 2014: 4th Round CB Ross Cockrell. He was cut, then immediately started for the Steelers for next 3 years and by all accounts is a quality player. We did not miss on the pick. We mismanaged the team. Period. Since this debacle we've had street FA/castoff CBs on the field, every season. We unsolved the problem. Some fans have sat stupefied wondering why our O line, their answer to all problems, doesn't prevent teams from torching us for multiple TD leads, or coming back on us by scoring 3 TDs, in a single quarter...from the bench. The rest of that argument is for another thread, but, there can be no doubt: we wasted draft capital.
How to avoid repetition of that error? First understand that, despite ignorant/wishful claims to the contrary(ahem, RG3 trade fan bois:
), responsible teams still use the value chart when they make trades. Teams probably do not use the old Jimmy Johnson chart. In fact, significant analysis has been done to prove 2 things: that teams still use a chart, but, that it's been slightly altered(the guy explains his work in links on this page). Also, remember that compensatory picks CAN be traded now, which means the value chart had to be altered regardless. Also, also, there seems to be some unknown modifier pts that are added if a team trades back into the first round(presumptively because of the 5th year option). This means that trades back into the first cost more than the value chart says they should, and this works out to ~an extra 5th/6th. Ultimately, the first thing is to do is accept the fact that each draft pick has a pre-assigned value.
Next, we can total up the value for the entire Bills draft: 675 (new chart), 2,262 (old chart). Consider, for context: Going Full Mike Ditka(search: Ditka Draft), leaves us short (1000-675=) -325 in the new, and - 738 in the old, in trying to trade up to #1 overall. For the rest of the post I'm just gonna use the new chart. 325 = #2 pick in the 24-25 range(#56-57 overall). It's generally accepted that the value of a next year's pick is one round down, so, #1 next year = #2 this year. We'd have to trade our whole draft this year, and next year's #1, #2, #3 and #4(675 + 193.5(387/2) + 74.5(149/2) + 32(64/2) + 13(26/2) = 988) to trade up to this year's #1 overall. Yes, it's not 1000, and yes we could add the #5 to get it to 994, etc...stop. I'm merely laying out how the chart/math works.
There are exceptions, like with the Raiders in 2013. Oakland needed bodies badly, and had to trade down. But, everybody knew that, so the Raiders got fleeced by the Dolphins: #3, for only #12 and #42. Upside: the Dophins squandered their pick on Dion Jordan. They ended up stealing: nothing. The value chart doesn't compensate for the Raiders...being the Raiders.
Moving on to a realistic value analysis: How about the value of our entire 4-7? = 75 = SF's 3rd round pick #3(67th overall). If we were to make that deal, we'd have a 1, 2, and 2 3s. This would go along way towards fixing our problem. Drafting 4 players in the top 3 Rds ensures no waste, and our FO hits on picks.
What if we traded out of the #9 pick? Let's say to #15 (after all it's the Redskins, of RG3 trade "fame"). That's 72 pts = their #3 and #5. Our 4-7 is now worth 86 = KC's #2(29, 61 overall). Now we have a #1, two #2s, and two #3s. KC won't do that. They don't need the bodies. A more likely trade? Our whole 4-7, minus our #6(or we get theirs), for ARZ's #3. They need lots of players + new head coach. That gives us a 1, 2, two 3s and a 6. Going back the SF trade above, who also needs bodies, same deal, but we get their #6, and keep our last 7.4 players in the top 3 rounds + one 6(+ perhaps a 7) vs. 3, then 7 in the bottom 4. Obviously better. Better chance of making the team. 0 waste. This, or something like this, seems reasonable. Perhaps that's what we'll see. I hope so.
Also, many Dophins fans say they are tanking for (best QB in 2020). It may be counterintuitive, but, the best approach to tanking may be to trade up with us in round 1, for a long term, sure thing, giving away picks they don't want on their team-->might win too many games this year. Likely tank candidates: MIA, CIN, DEN. Shadow Tankers(teams that will swear to God they are trying to win, but aren't): PIT, NYG, BAL, GB. The draft will probably tell us a lot about who is tanking. And once again, look at the value chart. There's a HUGE difference in value between #1 overall and #3, which means if you're gonna tank, you better mean it. No last minute heroics that get you to 4-12.
Tanking means we get even more room to maneuver, because these teams will do bad deals: they want to lose. Anyhow, I'm there's lot of scenarios that you guys can find.
-
2
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, row_33 said:
sorry you have taken the tragedy in NZL this heavily
go away and chill for a bit, listen to a good Genesis album.
Oh Jesus Christ
I'll remember this post the very next time some clown shoots up a Republican baseball practice, you unmitigated moron.
-
23 minutes ago, row_33 said:
You can't quote one Genesis song and then not allow a (to me) far better Phil Genesis song.... it's open season when a lyric goes up on TSW...
You must be quite the big fan....
And yet again: the DC_Tom butt-buddies circle the wagons.
Notice how I hit Tom's post hard...and none of you have responded to the substance(hint: water off a duck's ass)
Hey, the upside is: there is some entertainment value...for me...in this. I mean, it's not the old days of 15 threads a day started by paid Democrat shills...that was fun...when it was me, 3rdndlng(never forget my trolling ability), GG and Chef against 30 idiots....and DC_Tom would show up after they were defeated and call them all "Idiots".
But...and it's a big Bruce Smith Butt...none of you are saying anything dumb enough to be amusing.
I mean...there was a time when I actually had to explain that Consumer Spending(christ why can't I write ASCII, dammit?) Fine F IT!
I mean seriously, how the Hell are we gonnna write Global Warming*TM* now? HTML escape nonsense!?
Is it Simon day? (Simon is synonymous with ######, for like 80% of PPP)
Anyway now I do have to go. I can't believe that they filtered ASCII...or, I can't believe that I'm too ######ed to get around it. Either way: The HypnoFrog's entire posting life is over if we can't do ASCII anymore.
-
43 minutes ago, Foxx said:
lol!
what is this? a strawman to the obvious failings of your comment that DC Tom never starts threads. all i did was to point out your factual error and ask if that fallacy invalidated the rest of your premise.
try dealing with the merits of a post and attack that before you go off into strawman land.
Heh!
Ok, I'll attend to you once, and only once.
If you don't realize that the biggest strawman on this board IS DC_Tom, then either you haven't been here long, or, your new name is AOC Absence. Of. Cognition.
Bills Draft Capital Analysis
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
It's not logic, it's 8th grade math. WTF? Your chance of getting heads or tails is 50% no matter how many times you flip it, because? Each flip has no 0 effect on the next, or the one before it, no different than hitting on one player has no effect on hitting on the next player, or the one before.
NYS great education system == the reason I am teaching 8th grade math to adults on a Tuesday night.