You can only get a good QB in the top 3

[SoTier]

2 hours ago, mjt328 said:

1.  NFL history shows the vast majority of successful QBs are among the first 2-3 drafted in any given year.

 

2.  NFL history shows that drafting success rates steadily decrease from the Top 5, to the Top 10, to the last half of the 1st Round, to the early 2nd Round, and so on.  By the 4th or 5th Round, it's almost impossible to even find a marginal starter.

 

 

Some of the fans on this board are unbelievable.  After what this franchise has endured for the last two decades, many of you would STILL prefer to go the safe route.  You would prefer to let the 3rd, 4th or 5th option fall to us - rather than get the pick of the litter in a strong QB class, JUST so we can have another Linebacker or Receiver on the roster. 

 

 

 

That's all fine and dandy but drafting JP Losman or EJ Manuel at #1 wouldn't have made either significantly better (although Losman might have been better playing for somebody other than Jauron).    Being drafted #1 overall didn't prevent David Carr or JaMarcus Russell from busting.  Draft position isn't what determines a QB's success or failure.

[gobills1212]

Hold on hold on... I just gotta go grab my pencil, eraser, ruler, abacus, triangle, and my 1983 pro football weekly draft edition and I'll be rrriiiggghhhtttt bbbaaaccckkkk.....

[Batman1876]

6 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

That's all fine and dandy but drafting JP Losman or EJ Manuel at #1 wouldn't have made either significantly better (although Losman might have been better playing for somebody other than Jauron).    Being drafted #1 overall didn't prevent David Carr or JaMarcus Russell from busting.  Draft position isn't what determines a QB's success or failure.

No but their predicted future success does determine their draft order.  So drafting a QB high does not mean they will succeed but when teams all think that a guy will be successful they draft him high. I’m uncomfortable gambling that the Bills scouts are the best  and were unable to find a hidden gem that everyone else missed. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Batman1876

[Cripple Creek]

6 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I am thinking that all the shrill demands to move up to the top 3 are panic driven.  We could just stay at #12 and see what comes to us.   Moving to #2 would cost us at least:

#12 and #22 in the first round ,

#21 in the second round   (56 overall)

#1 in the third round  (65th overall)

 

leaving us with #2 in the first round,    overall #56 in the second round,   and #96 overall in the third round.  That is not very much to rebuild the offensive line, the wide receivers and the linebackers.

 

If we stay at #12 we would have 5 picks in the first three rounds:  overall #22,   #53,   #56,   #54  &  #96.    That is enough to rebuild these positions.  Realize that 5-6 high draft pick veteran QB;s have been picked up by other teams this year, so a few teams are probably not going to picking QB's before us.   Even in the first round, QB's are still a crap-shoot.  I think that it is a wiser strategy to be sure of restocking the weak positions and also taking a slightly less good shot at a QB.

 

I am a firm believer in the “see your guy, go get your guy” method of drafting, especially where QBs are concerned. If Beany and team have one guy then they must get him. If they have all grouped closely then they can wait. If they think the top group is over valued they can wait. The nice thing is we do hold all of the cards we need to do whatever they choose.

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  The evaluation that the pro's use to evaluate the QB prospects is the only one that matters.  It does not matter what you, me, some guy who runs a blog, or Kiper thinks.  Could be 4 off the board by pick 6 or it could be 2 by pick 6 or it could be 1 by pick 6.  I don't really get your top three analogy.  It seems a little arbitrary to me.  And it is only one sample.  I know the '83 draft was one of a kind but if you looked at 3 or 4 others that were similar would you still find that two out of the top three were studs in their pro careers?  What about '98 when QB's were 1-2 in that draft?  We have Manning then we have Leaf.  One will be a HOF-er and one during his first year in the league a person could see the flames of Leaf burning up from miles away.

Well, the "top 3" was chosen by a poster on a different board who did a pretty good original post that I stole the info from.   [  https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/3/12/17108340/nfl-scouts-are-generally-correct-on-draft-qbs  ]     He went from the '83 draft on.    Should it have been the top two picks, or the top five picks-?   I don't know- if you think there is a sensible cut-off, then you can make a case for it. Note that 1->3 =7800 and the next 5  ( 4->8)  = 8000 for what it is worth. So there is a break in the "price

Do you think that there is ONE and ACCURATE evaluation that the pros use?  I don't think so. The pros do know more and spend more time and energy than my couple of hours. We all got free evaluations and views from all the "experts", but at the end of the day, they are throwing darts just like I am.

 

By the way, stealing from that post again, here is a list of failures from the groupings

 

top 3 pick failures:   "  7 out of the 33, or 21.2%, are "Red". Jamarcus Russell, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Heath Shuler, Ryan Leaf and Rick Mirer"

 

rest of 1st round failures:    " 23 out of 45 - 51.1% - of the QBs taken in the 1st round outside the top were "Red" label. Paxton Lynch, Johnny Manziel, EJ Manuel, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Tim Tebow, Josh Freeman, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, JP Losman, Kyle Boller, Patrick Ramsey, Cade McNown, Jim Druckenmiller, David Klingler, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich, Andre Ware, Kelly Stouffer, Chuck Long, Todd Blackledge. "

17 minutes ago, gobills1212 said:

Hold on hold on... I just gotta go grab my pencil, eraser, ruler, abacus, triangle, and my 1983 pro football weekly draft edition and I'll be rrriiiggghhhtttt bbbaaaccckkkk.....

  What?  No slide rule?

[FearLess Price]

After the past 17 years of futility. Im surprised theres fans that still dont want us to trade into the top 3.

 

Is continuing to draft CBs, underpreforming DEs, or trading up for WRs gonna get us back to the playoffs? Hell no. Trade up for the franchise QB and call it.

[maryland-bills-fan]

14 minutes ago, FearLess Price said:

After the past 17 years of futility. Im surprised theres fans that still dont want us to trade into the top 3.

 

Is continuing to draft CBs, underpreforming DEs, or trading up for WRs gonna get us back to the playoffs? Hell no. Trade up for the franchise QB and call it.

Remember that 20% bust rate for drafting a top 3 draft pick QB.   You can sell the farm and STILL not get your saviour- and then you don't have the farm (missed players) either.

[P51]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  The evaluation that the pro's use to evaluate the QB prospects is the only one that matters.  It does not matter what you, me, some guy who runs a blog, or Kiper thinks.  Could be 4 off the board by pick 6 or it could be 2 by pick 6 or it could be 1 by pick 6.  I don't really get your top three analogy.  It seems a little arbitrary to me.  And it is only one sample.  I know the '83 draft was one of a kind but if you looked at 3 or 4 others that were similar would you still find that two out of the top three were studs in their pro careers?  What about '98 when QB's were 1-2 in that draft?  We have Manning then we have Leaf.  One will be a HOF-er and one during his first year in the league a person could see the flames of Leaf burning up from miles away.

 

The ones the pro's use is the one that matters for them. Ive seen them before and used them myself, regardless everyone is different and every teams evaluation is different, some are better than what the Joe's and the Shmo's come up with and some are not. Yes any number of Qb's could be gone by pick 6... The top 3 analogy comes from the another poster using the top 3 as a high indicator of success, and the wide belief by many including current GM's and scouts belief in season (before the BS season started) that there were 3-4 franchise level QB's in this draft. Looking at previous drafts, the odds of where QB's are picked (yes some bust, some dont), the greatest chance of success is to move up into the top 3 and get a QB, the Bills not moving up, not taking chances at QB has worked really well the last 2 decades. This is a discussion board? No?

 

Every draft has different strengths and weakness, I believe that this draft is the most similar to the 83' draft ever, and like the 83" draft there will be busts, I would hope the Bills would ID 2 or 3 guys who they feel like are the future and instead of sitting still, use there resources and make a move to land that guy(s), based on their evaluations, make it happen not hope he falls to 12, while there are busts high in the draft, its clear the higher you pick one, the better the odds are that he will turn into a franchise guy. They can wait 2 more decades and hope they hit the lottery in 6th round and B.J. Babin in the 2051 draft works out like Brady did, or Ryan Leaf Jr. in the 3rd in the 2032 draft is the next Wilson...

 

I thought there was enough reason in there not be completely arbitrary, so my apologies. 83' was one sample, but its the best sample in terms of overall depth at the QB position pre-draft. There is also the 04' draft where the top 3 guys were rated similarly to this draft and all 3 turned out to be studs, but to get one Buffalo had to move up as would have many teams that needed QB's, they were unable to do so and unwilling to pay the price, and history does not favor Buffalo sitting still. 

 

I guess for me it boils down to them using foresight and their resources to make their own destiny at the QB position. I know its just some random guys opinion on the TBD message board, but this is a draft where moving up for a QB will be worth it, the prospects are good enough, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold have shown NFL skill sets. 

 

What do you hope the Bills do in this draft?

 

[ndirish1978]

6 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

You don't see it in college anymore.  It was never run in the pro's.  Defenders are too fast to the sideline in the pro's because they have the cream of the college players.

 

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

7 hours ago, ndirish1978 said:

We might as well run the Wishbone I guess. Worked in the past should work out right?

 

A blind man walked into a bar one night. One of the patrons at the bar saw him and helped him get to a barstool and get a drink. After a few minutes, the blind man leaned over to his new friend and said, "I just heard the world's best blonde joke. Would you like to hear it?"

The other man said, "Friend, before you say another word, there's something you need to know."

"What's that?" the blind man asked.

"There are five people besides you in this bar. The bartender is blonde. The boucer is blonde. There are two women sitting at the end of the bar. One is an off-duty police officer, and the other is a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, and they're both blond. I'm six-foot-four, two hundred and sixty pounds, and I've got a third degree black belt in karate, and I'm blonde.

"So," the man concluded, "Are you sure you really want to tell that joke?"

The blind man thought about it for a minute and said, "No, not if I'm going to have to explain it five times."

[Tyrod's friend]

6 minutes ago, P51 said:

 

The ones the pro's use is the one that matters for them. Ive seen them before and used them myself, regardless everyone is different and every teams evaluation is different, some are better than what the Joe's and the Shmo's come up with and some are not. Yes any number of Qb's could be gone by pick 6... The top 3 analogy comes from the another poster using the top 3 as a high indicator of success, and the wide belief by many including current GM's and scouts belief in season (before the BS season started) that there were 3-4 franchise level QB's in this draft. Looking at previous drafts, the odds of where QB's are picked (yes some bust, some dont), the greatest chance of success is to move up into the top 3 and get a QB, the Bills not moving up, not taking chances at QB has worked really well the last 2 decades. This is a discussion board? No?

 

Every draft has different strengths and weakness, I believe that this draft is the most similar to the 83' draft ever, and like the 83" draft there will be busts, I would hope the Bills would ID 2 or 3 guys who they feel like are the future and instead of sitting still, use there resources and make a move to land that guy(s), based on their evaluations, make it happen not hope he falls to 12, while there are busts high in the draft, its clear the higher you pick one, the better the odds are that he will turn into a franchise guy. They can wait 2 more decades and hope they hit the lottery in 6th round and B.J. Babin in the 2051 draft works out like Brady did, or Ryan Leaf Jr. in the 3rd in the 2032 draft is the next Wilson...

 

I thought there was enough reason in there not be completely arbitrary, so my apologies. 83' was one sample, but its the best sample in terms of overall depth at the QB position pre-draft. There is also the 04' draft where the top 3 guys were rated similarly to this draft and all 3 turned out to be studs, but to get one Buffalo had to move up as would have many teams that needed QB's, they were unable to do so and unwilling to pay the price, and history does not favor Buffalo sitting still. 

 

I guess for me it boils down to them using foresight and their resources to make their own destiny at the QB position. I know its just some random guys opinion on the TBD message board, but this is a draft where moving up for a QB will be worth it, the prospects are good enough, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold have shown NFL skill sets. 

 

What do you hope the Bills do in this draft?

 

I'd disagree with the 83 draft, if only because 2012 is so much more recent and similar on so many levels.

The first pick was universal, and owned by the Colts and they took Luck. Similarly, I think Darnold is ahead of the next guy and is owned by the Browns who should take him. We know what happened to the team that moved up to get Griffin - their draft was a wasteland for the next two years and the organization was hurt. Their only recourse was that their fourth round pick hit. Will we play the role of the Redskins here? Or Philadelphia? The difference is that in 2016 there simply wasn't the depth of QBs thought to be roughly equivilant. There wasn't much of a choice - either you had Wentz or Goff. 

The thing is that all 8 2012 QBs were considered - at the least, by NFL Tracker - close. And all of the QBs achieved differing levels of success. There wasn't any need to leap forward. 

I'd say go big or go backward. Play for Darnold, and impact to be damned for future organization impact. Wentz, Winston, Mariotta, Luck, and yeah, Griffin - get it. If it costs 12, 22 and next years 1st, so be it. Get the #1 pick in the draft. Cleveland has shown they are stupid enough to make the deal.

[maryland-bills-fan]

Whatever the Bills do, I am going to turn around, say its the best thing since sliced bread and defend it to the death.  Definition of a homer. Been doing this for 50 years and haven't learned yet.  No super bowl wins either.   sigh..........

[RochesterRob]

8 minutes ago, P51 said:

 

The ones the pro's use is the one that matters for them. Ive seen them before and used them myself, regardless everyone is different and every teams evaluation is different, some are better than what the Joe's and the Shmo's come up with and some are not. Yes any number of Qb's could be gone by pick 6... The top 3 analogy comes from the another poster using the top 3 as a high indicator of success, and the wide belief by many including current GM's and scouts belief in season (before the BS season started) that there were 3-4 franchise level QB's in this draft. Looking at previous drafts, the odds of where QB's are picked (yes some bust, some dont), the greatest chance of success is to move up into the top 3 and get a QB, the Bills not moving up, not taking chances at QB has worked really well the last 2 decades. This is a discussion board? No?

 

Every draft has different strengths and weakness, I believe that this draft is the most similar to the 83' draft ever, and like the 83" draft there will be busts, I would hope the Bills would ID 2 or 3 guys who they feel like are the future and instead of sitting still, use there resources and make a move to land that guy(s), based on their evaluations, make it happen not hope he falls to 12, while there are busts high in the draft, its clear the higher you pick one, the better the odds are that he will turn into a franchise guy. They can wait 2 more decades and hope they hit the lottery in 6th round and B.J. Babin in the 2051 draft works out like Brady did, or Ryan Leaf Jr. in the 3rd in the 2032 draft is the next Wilson...

 

I thought there was enough reason in there not be completely arbitrary, so my apologies. 83' was one sample, but its the best sample in terms of overall depth at the QB position pre-draft. There is also the 04' draft where the top 3 guys were rated similarly to this draft and all 3 turned out to be studs, but to get one Buffalo had to move up as would have many teams that needed QB's, they were unable to do so and unwilling to pay the price, and history does not favor Buffalo sitting still. 

 

I guess for me it boils down to them using foresight and their resources to make their own destiny at the QB position. I know its just some random guys opinion on the TBD message board, but this is a draft where moving up for a QB will be worth it, the prospects are good enough, Mayfield, Rosen and Darnold have shown NFL skill sets. 

 

What do you hope the Bills do in this draft?

 

   Yes, it is a discussion board and I don't hate you for having a different opinion.  I guess I am used to the guys who have the opinion to move up to pick 2 or 3 being combative if somebody differs with them.  I would add that I think an interview can be a big wild card and will matter when it comes to somebody such as Rosen (potentially).  He has made it known he does not want to be in Cleveland and might have similar feelings about Buffalo.  He might even chance throwing the interview with the Bills if he did not otherwise think it would hurt his draft standing.  Rosen interviewing poorly may not come to light publicly but would be ample reason for Beane to push him down on the list.

 

  As to my hopes and I believe Beane might be considering doing this would be to hold pick 12 for Roquan Smith to anchor the defense.  Whether getting a vet QB was intentional or unintentional it does open the door to allow a rookie QB to sit for a while.  I think that Allen is viable in this scenario and probably could be had at pick 10 or thereabouts.  Use 22, a second, and another pick to get up to 10 to grab Allen.  Now we have Allen, Smith, and can address OL, WR, TE with our other high picks.  

 

[gobills1212]

1 hour ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Well, the "top 3" was chosen by a poster on a different board who did a pretty good original post that I stole the info from.   [  https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/3/12/17108340/nfl-scouts-are-generally-correct-on-draft-qbs  ]     He went from the '83 draft on.    Should it have been the top two picks, or the top five picks-?   I don't know- if you think there is a sensible cut-off, then you can make a case for it. Note that 1->3 =7800 and the next 5  ( 4->8)  = 8000 for what it is worth. So there is a break in the "price

Do you think that there is ONE and ACCURATE evaluation that the pros use?  I don't think so. The pros do know more and spend more time and energy than my couple of hours. We all got free evaluations and views from all the "experts", but at the end of the day, they are throwing darts just like I am.

 

By the way, stealing from that post again, here is a list of failures from the groupings

 

top 3 pick failures:   "  7 out of the 33, or 21.2%, are "Red". Jamarcus Russell, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Heath Shuler, Ryan Leaf and Rick Mirer"

 

rest of 1st round failures:    " 23 out of 45 - 51.1% - of the QBs taken in the 1st round outside the top were "Red" label. Paxton Lynch, Johnny Manziel, EJ Manuel, Brandon Weeden, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Tim Tebow, Josh Freeman, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, JP Losman, Kyle Boller, Patrick Ramsey, Cade McNown, Jim Druckenmiller, David Klingler, Dan McGwire, Todd Marinovich, Andre Ware, Kelly Stouffer, Chuck Long, Todd Blackledge. "

  What?  No slide rule?

touche!

[Boca BIlls]

How about the Bills go get the QB they want... Instead of settling for whoever is left. 

[Jay_Fixit]

I think the posters (and people) that think 4 QB’s will go top 10 are gonna be surprised come draft day.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

 

It is notable that since the current CBA and the rookie salaries, the draft landscape has changed. Teams are a bit less reluctant to "pull the trigger" high in the draft since they won't be held to ransom for a cap-ruinous chunk of change on a QB who hasn't shown he can play.  1983 is not today.  The territory is different, the map is different.

 

You can get a good QB at any pick, in round of the draft, including "no round" (UDFA).  The question is "how likely is it?"

 

People have looked at this by hard numeric criteria (me among others), by years of starting in the league, and by "eyeball test".  While both the absolute numbers and the individual QB slither around a bit depending upon the methodology, the overall conclusions are remarkably consistent:

1) the odds of getting a long-term starter who can get you deep in the playoffs consistently with enough of a team, are highest in the top 3 picks.  Somewhere between 60-75%

2) top 5 picks, 50%

3) picks 11-20, 30%

4) picks 5-32 and the 2nd round, 20%

(the odds of a good QB actually drop to 20% from picks 5-10 and to 8% 21-32, but they're small number samples so unreliable)

5) 3rd and 4th round, 10-15%

6) after that, ~5% or less.

 

Now if you have a mathematical bent, you can calculate number of times you need to turn the crank to drop the odds of AVOIDING good QB to 5% or less:

1) top 3 picks: (using 75% hit rate) 2 times

2) top 5 picks (using 50% hit rate): 4 times

3) picks 11-20 (30% hit rate): 8 picks

4) picks 5-32 overall and 2nd round (19-22% hit rate): 12-15x

5) 3rd and 4th round (10-15% hit rate): 18-28x

6) 5th round and later (<5% hit rate): 58x

 

Now this is assuming that all teams have roughly equivalent information and pro-football talent evaluation/decision making, which is palpably untrue.  Being better at screening out "duds", tuning out "pre draft noise", and identifying what traits really drive QB success in the NFL can obviously better the chances.

 

I think it is an interesting point, though, for those who are afraid to "overspend" draft capital to move into the top 3 picks:

If you use 3 first-round picks to move into the top-3 picks, and you miss on your first shot and need to do it again in 3 years -you may still come out ahead on draft picks vs. using a single pick on Rd 1, 5-32 - where you might have to use 12 picks to achieve success.

 

Hmmmmmm.

[Domdab99]

Lol you have no idea who’s going to be a good QB and who’s not. No one does. That’s why the draft is a crapshoot

[RochesterRob]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

 

It is notable that since the current CBA and the rookie salaries, the draft landscape has changed. Teams are a bit less reluctant to "pull the trigger" high in the draft since they won't be held to ransom for a cap-ruinous chunk of change on a QB who hasn't shown he can play.  1983 is not today.  The territory is different, the map is different.

 

You can get a good QB at any pick, in round of the draft, including "no round" (UDFA).  The question is "how likely is it?"

 

People have looked at this by hard numeric criteria (me among others), by years of starting in the league, and by "eyeball test".  While both the absolute numbers and the individual QB slither around a bit depending upon the methodology, the overall conclusions are remarkably consistent:

1) the odds of getting a long-term starter who can get you deep in the playoffs consistently with enough of a team, are highest in the top 3 picks.  Somewhere between 60-75%

2) top 5 picks, 50%

3) picks 11-20, 30%

4) picks 5-32 and the 2nd round, 20%

(the odds of a good QB actually drop to 20% from picks 5-10 and to 8% 21-32, but they're small number samples so unreliable)

5) 3rd and 4th round, 10-15%

6) after that, ~5% or less.

 

Now if you have a mathematical bent, you can calculate number of times you need to turn the crank to drop the odds of AVOIDING good QB to 5% or less:

1) top 3 picks: (using 75% hit rate) 2 times

2) top 5 picks (using 50% hit rate): 4 times

3) picks 11-20 (30% hit rate): 8 picks

4) picks 5-32 overall and 2nd round (19-22% hit rate): 12-15x

5) 3rd and 4th round (10-15% hit rate): 18-28x

6) 5th round and later (<5% hit rate): 58x

 

Now this is assuming that all teams have roughly equivalent information and pro-football talent evaluation/decision making, which is palpably untrue.  Being better at screening out "duds", tuning out "pre draft noise", and identifying what traits really drive QB success in the NFL can obviously better the chances.

 

I think it is an interesting point, though, for those who are afraid to "overspend" draft capital to move into the top 3 picks:

If you use 3 first-round picks to move into the top-3 picks, and you miss on your first shot and need to do it again in 3 years -you may still come out ahead on draft picks vs. using a single pick on Rd 1, 5-32 - where you might have to use 12 picks to achieve success.

 

Hmmmmmm.

  It would be interesting to know how many of those picks were the result of staying in a draft slot and how many were move ups.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Deciding what is a successful QB and aligning that with their drafted position is a mushy piece of work.  I've tried that myself but found a better one here:

https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/3/12/17108340/nfl-scouts-are-generally-correct-on-draft-qbs

 

He compares the first three picks with the rest of the first round and with the 2nd and 3rd round.  GOLD is what you want.

TOP 3 PICKS

• 64% GOLD
• 15% GREEN
• 21% RED …………………………………………{ ONE out of FIVE top 3 QB picks is a BUST !!!  that is a lot of wasted draft horsepower}

1st round

• 33% GOLD
• 16% GREEN
• 51% RED..........................................{about half are BUSTS)

2nd and 3rd round

• 22% GOLD
• 13% GREEN
• 65% RED

============================

working from the OP data you can estimate/guesttimate the following

=============================

How many times to you have to draft a QB in those spots to get a GOLD QB? (= 100 /  %chance)
top 3  ..............1.56 picks
rest of 1st ......3.03 picks
2n3 & 3rd ........4.54 picks

==========================================

and what is the draft-value cost for each GOLD success?

pick..............# of tries................median DTV ............................"expected cost" = {# picks} X {DTV cost}

top 3............. 1.56 picks............... 2600.................................... 4,056
rest of 1st..... 3.03 picks................ 875 ....................................2,651
2n3 & 3rd ......4.54 picks............... 265..................................... 1,203

 

It is expensive to go up to a top 3 pick- unless you are already there. AND even that is not a sure thing.

 

 

 

The Buffalo Rumblings article is a good one, but the estimate/guestimate using 100/% chance is just incorrect.

First of all, in probability, you never get to 100% so 100/% chance - I have no idea where that comes from, I consulted the "better half" who is math+++ to my math+ - sorry, we think you're just wrong

 

The way to look at it is the odds of failure from repeated independent events.  If you have 64% odds of success, (1-.64) x the number of independent throws is your probability that you fail every time.  Then 1 - (probability of repeated failure) is your odds of success.

 

If you want 95% odds of success, the actual formula is log (0.05)/log (1-odds of success on each throw) = # of throws.

 

Got to run, later.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Keep running your crusade. Mark my words: 4 QB will be gone in the first 10 picks.

 

I don't want Lamar Jackson. Ergo, I want to move up.

 

[Jay_Fixit]

56 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Keep running your crusade. Mark my words: 4 QB will be gone in the first 10 picks.

 

I don't want Lamar Jackson. Ergo, I want to move up.

 

Your words are marked. And they’ll be incorrect.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Jay_Fixit said:

Your words are marked. And they’ll be incorrect.

 

Cleveland

Jets

Donkos

Bills

 

will all pick QB in the top 10.

 

So go ahead and mark them.

 

[mjt328]

3 hours ago, SoTier said:

That's all fine and dandy but drafting JP Losman or EJ Manuel at #1 wouldn't have made either significantly better (although Losman might have been better playing for somebody other than Jauron).    Being drafted #1 overall didn't prevent David Carr or JaMarcus Russell from busting.  Draft position isn't what determines a QB's success or failure.

 

Of course not.  And nobody is saying "draft order" magically makes players better or worse.

 

For the most part, NFL scouts and GMs are in pretty close agreement about which players have the best chance of success in the pros.  There are obviously some variations between teams.  One team may place a premium on arm strength, while another is more interested in accuracy.  Another may disqualify a player for off-field concerns, while another is willing to take the risk.  Doctors may have different opinions about injury history.  But if you could take a peek at all 32 draft boards, I think you would find them remarkably similar.

 

When people post stats/historical data about "draft order" - what they are really trying to say is that higher ranked prospects (based on consensus) have a MUCH higher track record of success than lower ranked prospects.  It's just simple math.  Yes, there are always going to be Tom Bradys that nobody sees coming. Yes, there are always going to be Jamarcus Russells and Ryan Leafs that are raved about as prospects, then bust horribly.  But the numbers don't lie.  Your odds are better taking your 1st or 2nd ranked guy, as opposed to the 4th, 5th, etc.

 

If you could take a look at every team's 2018 QB draft board, I would fully expect to see Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen within EVERY team's Top 2-5.  Depending on how those teams rank things like arm strength, accuracy, height, athletic ability, etc., I would fully expect Josh Allen, Baker Mayfield and Lamar Jackson sprinkled into those other spots.  Of course, someone might like Allen or Mayfield as their #1.  Others may have them at their #4-5.  But I highly doubt (for example) that anyone will have Darnold ranked as a 4th Round prospect, or someone like Kyle Lauletta as worthy of a Top 5 pick.

 

At the end of the day, if 32/32 scouts believe that Josh Rosen is going to have a better chance at success than Mason Rudolph... there is a higher probability they are going to be right.

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The Buffalo Rumblings article is a good one, but the estimate/guestimate using 100/% chance is just incorrect.

First of all, in probability, you never get to 100% so 100/% chance - I have no idea where that comes from, I consulted the "better half" who is math+++ to my math+ - sorry, we think you're just wrong

 

The way to look at it is the odds of failure from repeated independent events.  If you have 64% odds of success, (1-.64) x the number of independent throws is your probability that you fail every time.  Then 1 - (probability of repeated failure) is your odds of success.

 

If you want 95% odds of success, the actual formula is log (0.05)/log (1-odds of success on each throw) = # of throws.

 

Got to run, later.

I disagree.  Look at the student T test. We have a small sample size, a murky test criteria (what is the deviation from the mean) and to talk about a 100% confidence level that there is a statistical difference between the means is just silly.    I'm reminded of Mark Twain. " there are liars, there are damn liars and there are statistics".  Ask questions about when the sample size is 2 to 10. Opps.
 

Edited March 15, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I disagree.  Look at the student T test. We have a small sample size, a murky test criteria (what is the deviation from the mean) and to talk about a 100% confidence level that there is a statistical difference between the means is just silly.    I'm reminded of Mark Twain. " there are liars, there are damn liars and there are statistics".  Ask questions about when the sample size is 2 to 10. Opps.
 

 

DUDE!  This has nothing to do with small sample size, murky test criteria, or anything else. What you did is simply mathematically incorrect.

Now I make mistakes, but when my mistake is pointed out, I acknowledge it, I don't start obfuscating about 'statistical difference between the means' and '100% confidence levels' and toss in a Mark Twain quote about liars and statistics, none of which are relevant here and the latter of which is pretty damn insulting.

 

This isn't a quibble; correct math leads one to EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION as your incorrect statistical calculation

 

To recap, this is what you did:

From Maryland-Bills-Fan post:

working from the OP data you can estimate/guesttimate the following

How many times to you have to draft a QB in those spots to get a GOLD QB? (= 100 /  %chance)
top 3  ..............1.56 picks
rest of 1st ......3.03 picks
2n3 & 3rd ........4.54 picks

 

To calculate the number of picks you need, you are using a value of 100%.  Nothing in statistics reaches a point of certainty, so that's wrong up front.

Then to calculate the number of picks needed for certainty, you are dividing 100% by the % chance of GOLD at different draft positions.

This is simply incorrect statistical calculation.  I'm frankly unclear where you even got this.

 

Here is how it should be done, using your posted values:

top 3: 64% "Gold".   Therefore probability of not-Gold in any one draft choice: (1-0.64) = 0.36

let's say you draft 3x in the top 3 picks.  Your chance of "not-Gold" in all 3 picks is: (0.36)x(0.36)x(0.36) = 0.05. 

This means you have (1 - 0.05) = 95% chance of success at getting a GOLD qb if you draft in the first 3 picks, 3 times.  Yea!  Success!  But 3 picks - not "1.56 picks.

 

(0.36)x(0.36)x(0.36) is often written (0.36)^3, so the equation is: (0.36)^3 = 0.05

The general equation will be (1 - %chance GOLD)^n = 0.05, where "n" is the number of picks needed to achieve a 95% chance of success.

To simplify, you take log of both sides, use the identity log (x^n) = n log (x), then solve for n to get:

n = log (0.05)/log (1 - % chance GOLD).

 

The correct values for 95% chance of success are:

top 3 (64% GOLD)  ..............3 picks
rest of 1st (33% GOLD)......7.5 picks (round up to 8 picks)
2nd & 3rd (22% GOLD)........12 picks

 

So we would need (theoretically) to pick a QB in the 2nd and 3rd round 12 times, to achieve the same odds of success as drafting 3 QB in the top 3 picks of the first.

 

When calculated correctly, it actually makes sense to "burn draft capital" and trade up to the top 3 picks vs. taking a shot at a late 1st or 2nd and 3rd round guy.

3 years of trying (assuming there's a QB we like that high each year) vs 12 years of trying?   Each guy needs a couple years to evaluate/develop, that's the difference between as many 6-9 yrs vs 24-36 years for a "GOLD" QB.

 

Hell to the Yeah, Trade Up

Pox and Pestilence to the years of GMs who put us in this abysmal hole by failing to either trade up or pull the trigger often enough at the lower rounds in the last 25 years.

 

And not incidentally, I reiterated this just in case there are any impressionable young minds reading this: we don't want them to fail AP Statistics

Or even the statistics my kid learnt in 6th grade.

 

And oh yeah: significant figures and common sense, too - 3.03 picks? 4.54 picks?  C'mon Man. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I am thinking that all the shrill demands to move up to the top 3 are panic driven.

 

More like data driven.  The chance of a good QB in the top 2 picks is significantly better than the chance lower down.

 

Here are the names the Buffalo Rumblings article you quote cite as 33% "GOLD" in the rest of the 1st round:

Ryan Tannehill, Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Chad Pennington, Daunte Culpepper, Kerry Collins, Trent Dilfer, Chris Miller, Jim Harbaugh, Jim Kelly, Ken O'Brien, and Dan Marino.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Old Timers here raise their eyebrows at Dilfer, Miller, and Harbaugh as examples of QB GOLD, while newer chaps aren't so persuaded about Tannehill, Flacco, and Cutler.  I would say yes to T and F but not Cutler.  That would mean 11/45 or 24% (not 15/45 or 33%).

 

The overall point remains - at best, it's 2x as likely to get a good QB in the top 3 picks than in the rest of the round.  At worst, more like 3x as likely.

 

If there's someone you like, and you can, TRADE UP

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

DUDE!  This has nothing to do with small sample size, murky test criteria, or anything else. What you did is simply mathematically incorrect.

Now I make mistakes, but when my mistake is pointed out, I acknowledge it, I don't start obfuscating about 'statistical difference between the means' and '100% confidence levels' and toss in a Mark Twain quote about liars and statistics, none of which are relevant here and the latter of which is pretty damn insulting.

 

This isn't a quibble; correct math leads one to EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION as your incorrect statistical calculation

 

To recap, this is what you did:

From Maryland-Bills-Fan post:

working from the OP data you can estimate/guesttimate the following

How many times to you have to draft a QB in those spots to get a GOLD QB? (= 100 /  %chance)
top 3  ..............1.56 picks
rest of 1st ......3.03 picks
2n3 & 3rd ........4.54 picks

 

To calculate the number of picks you need, you are using a value of 100%.  Nothing in statistics reaches a point of certainty, so that's wrong up front.

Then to calculate the number of picks needed for certainty, you are dividing 100% by the % chance of GOLD at different draft positions.

This is simply incorrect statistical calculation.  I'm frankly unclear where you even got this.

 

Here is how it should be done, using your posted values:

top 3: 64% "Gold".   Therefore probability of not-Gold in any one draft choice: (1-0.64) = 0.36

let's say you draft 3x in the top 3 picks.  Your chance of "not-Gold" in all 3 picks is: (0.36)x(0.36)x(0.36) = 0.05. 

This means you have (1 - 0.05) = 95% chance of success at getting a GOLD qb if you draft in the first 3 picks, 3 times.  Yea!  Success!  But 3 picks - not "1.56 picks.

 

(0.36)x(0.36)x(0.36) is often written (0.36)^3, so the equation is: (0.36)^3 = 0.05

The general equation will be (1 - %chance GOLD)^n = 0.05, where "n" is the number of picks needed to achieve a 95% chance of success.

To simplify, you take log of both sides, use the identity log (x^n) = n log (x), then solve for n to get:

n = log (0.05)/log (1 - % chance GOLD).

 

The correct values for 95% chance of success are:

top 3 (64% GOLD)  ..............3 picks
rest of 1st (33% GOLD)......7.5 picks (round up to 8 picks)
2nd & 3rd (22% GOLD)........12 picks

 

So we would need (theoretically) to pick a QB in the 2nd and 3rd round 12 times, to achieve the same odds of success as drafting 3 QB in the top 3 picks of the first.

 

When calculated correctly, it actually makes sense to "burn draft capital" and trade up to the top 3 picks vs. taking a shot at a late 1st or 2nd and 3rd round guy.

3 years of trying (assuming there's a QB we like that high each year) vs 12 years of trying?   Each guy needs a couple years to evaluate/develop, that's the difference between as many 6-9 yrs vs 24-36 years for a "GOLD" QB.

 

Hell to the Yeah, Trade Up

Pox and Pestilence to the years of GMs who put us in this abysmal hole by failing to either trade up or pull the trigger often enough at the lower rounds in the last 25 years.

 

And not incidentally, I reiterated this just in case there are any impressionable young minds reading this: we don't want them to fail AP Statistics

Or even the statistics my kid learnt in 6th grade.

 

And oh yeah: significant figures and common sense, too - 3.03 picks? 4.54 picks?  C'mon Man. 

 

 

 

Sorry, but you don't understand the difference between independent and  coupled variables. Did you ever think that once you had a franchise QB,  you wouldn't keep trying to draft one?   What does "taking the log of xxxx" have to do with this simple thing?   Ok, here it is simple.  Once you got the franchise guy, you stop. The chance to get "the guy" in the first draft is 64%.   So you only try for him in the 2nd draft 36% of the time.  You chance of getting him in the 2nd try is (36% {the chance you are still looking) X 64% (your chance of getting him in the second swing).  Your chance of not getting him that timer and having to try again is 36%.     0.64 + (.36x .64) + (.32x.32x.64) for three years.

First year:  64% chance.   2nd year 87%  3rd year 95.3%.  .  So on average, 1.5 tries is close enough for government work.   Really do you have to be so insulting in you tone?  Don't you think it is childish to quibble about whether to round up or not round up the numbers. Gessh !

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by maryland-bills-fan

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

14 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Steve Billieve

Steve Billieve wrote   <q> "You never know what will happen.  Top 3 overall QBs have a much higher success rate than those late in the first or after.  We've set the board to draft a QB high, which I guess is why this is a thread at all.

Do we change the game plan now?  </q>

 

I don't know what the game plan was, although a lot of people think they do know.   A good manager will have an up-front plan, but should be able to take advantage of changes in the situation. A military axiom is " No plan survives contact with the enemy".  What IS the gameplan?

 

Version #1 (most obvious):  The Bills were planning on tanking in 2017, so they would draft high and  get a franchsie QB in the 2018 draft.  They screwed up and got pick #21 and have been trying to claw their way back to the top of the draft.  They traded away good players (Watkins) to get more draft picks. They desperately traded away their (often) starting left offensive tackle to get a #12 so they might trade up to a top 3 (5?) pick.

 

Alternate Version #2.   The Bills worked in the off season to clear high salary cap, fairly good players in order to stockpile picks to rebuild the team. This includes a shot at a superior QB as well.   They have been wheeling and dealing and the last guy out was the LOF to bump up one of the draft picks to #12. They will draft a QB with that draft and will get a good one.  The rest of the draft (5 more picks in the first three rounds) will be used to restock the offensive line (center!),  linebackers and wide receivers.   They got McCarron as a two year stopgap, to give time for that rookie QB to develop.  They don't have to draft an immediate NFL ready guy who will start in game 1.

 

I think Alternate Version #2 is what they are going with.   By, the way, if we go with plan Version #1,  I will HATE seeing the 5 players we could have drafted beating the Bills in games for the next 7 years.

 

 

 

 

There's no way Version #2 is the plan. IMO they have already discussed trade plans with picks #1-#4 and will know who they are getting by the morning of the draft. The league is different than 35 years ago. You can't breathe on receivers so the value of an accurate QB is more important than back then. This Version  lends itself to management thinking, "what the hell, we'll take the best quarterback left". They are too focused IMO to just let the chips fall where they may.  Unless they go thru workouts and have 5 QB's they like, not likely. then they could trade to #7 Tampa Bay. All these moves were not made to praying and hoping their guy is there at #12.

11 hours ago, wppete said:

Have a feeling we are either trading for #2 or #3 this year. Rosen or Darnold. 

You are on the right track for sure. the Bills were aggressive in trades last year; and that was for a receiver and O-Lineman. If they can find a partner; and I think they probably already have, a tentative one(or two)deals are already in the works.They ARE are trading for our next QB.

[maryland-bills-fan]

9 minutes ago, MOVALLEYRANDY said:

There's no way Version #2 is the plan. IMO they have already discussed trade plans with picks #1-#4 and will know who they are getting by the morning of the draft. The league is different than 35 years ago. You can't breathe on receivers so the value of an accurate QB is more important than back then. This Version  lends itself to management thinking, "what the hell, we'll take the best quarterback left". They are too focused IMO to just let the chips fall where they may.  Unless they go thru workouts and have 5 QB's they like, not likely. then they could trade to #7 Tampa Bay. All these moves were not made to praying and hoping their guy is there at #12.

You are on the right track for sure. the Bills were aggressive in trades last year; and that was for a receiver and O-Lineman. If they can find a partner; and I think they probably already have, a tentative one(or two)deals are already in the works.They ARE are trading for our next QB.

Uh,   I know I drink a lot and am happy to remember why I came into a room, but I don't recall writing that first statement.   Anyway, reality is just an illusion.

 

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

8 hours ago, Boca BIlls said:

How about the Bills go get the QB they want... Instead of settling for whoever is left. 

We have a winner !!!!