Bills Draft Capital Analysis

[4BillsintheBurgh]

15 hours 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.

Oh my, let`s not get into the Cockrell debacle again! The angst that was thrown around on this board about such a clearly awful move, wow, pages and pages of angst. After Russ got his second All-pro nod in three seasons as a steeler, my goodness, folks were throwing themselves onto flaming tables while simultaneously trying to drown women in alcohol using the curious method of pouring it down their backside. Times like these are better left forgotten for fear of the next massive personnel failure.

[mjt328]

We still have room to keep our 10 picks without being forced into cutting key players from the 53-man roster. 

 

Looking through our current roster, I think (barring someone getting traded) we currently have 41 roster spots "set in stone"  for the upcoming season.

That would leave the following players as guys who would need to battle against drafted/undrafted rookies for a spot, or who could ultimately end up on the 10-man practice squad:

Derek Anderson, Senorise Perry, Marcus Murphy, Keith Ford, Duke Williams, Isaiah McKenzie, Ray-Ray McCloud, Da'Mari Scott, Cam Phillips, Victor Bolden, Jason Croom, Jake Fisher, Russell Bodine, Vlad Ducasse, Ike Boettger, Connor McDermott, Eddie Yarbrough, Mike Love, Kyle Peko, Deon Lacey, Corey Thompson, Julian Stanford, Ryan Lewis, Lafayette Pitts, Denzel Rice, Dean Marlow, Siran Neal, Corey Bojorquez and Cory Carter.

 

Nothing we can't live without...

 

Going into the draft, I see the following 12 spots being up for grabs.

1 Running Back

1 Wide Receiver

2 Tight Ends

1 Offensive Lineman

1 Defensive End

1 Defensive Tackle

1 Outside Linebacker

1 Inside Linebacker

1 Cornerback

1 Safety

1 Punter

 

[maryland-bills-fan]

Remember that the draft value charts were, and still are, set up for the value of a draft pick in drafting a STARTING QB!.     I would like to see someone ( not me!) go through 5 years of the entire draft and  tabulate :[1] draft position distribution by position,  & [2] success of each pick (all pro, starter,  playing time as independent variables).

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

Later round picks have always been a crap shoot.  Although I believe they will use some of the current picks to move around, I don't expect the Bills to drastically reduce the total number of players drafted.  I expect them to select 5 to 7 players.  I don't get too upset over the players that the team cuts.  I trust that the coaches that see these players everyday at practice know who the best performers and that they will keep the best players.  Too many fans get emotionally attached to a player and think the sky is falling if their guy gets the axe.  Every year there seems to be some surprising veteran cuts and some surprising late round draft pick stars.  It's one of the things that makes the NFL so fascinating.  

 

Good thread and good analysis.

[Pete]

trading two 4s, two 5ths, 6, and 7 for a 3 is Mike Ditka dumb.  Perhaps dumber

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

[OCinBuffalo]

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? 

Edited April 9, 2019 by OCinBuffalo

[Pete]

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

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 there is a draft chart that just automagically happens to comport with every single draft trade for the last 6 years, perhaps more? 

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

[Warcodered]

 I think I get the idea you never want to put yourself in a position where you have to cut draft picks because it's a waste of value.

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

[LSHMEAB]

46 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

 

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%.

Huh? No. If you flip a coin 10 times, you are certainly more likely to get a single heads than if you flip it once just as you have a better chance at hitting on a single draft pick if you get 7 cracks at it. Your logic is puzzling.

[OCinBuffalo]

35 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Huh? No. If you flip a coin 10 times, you are certainly more likely to get a single heads than if you flip it once just as you have a better chance at hitting on a single draft pick if you get 7 cracks at it. Your logic is puzzling.

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.

[LSHMEAB]

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

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.

You said the chances of hitting on one draft pick is equivalent to the chances of busting on 7. Remember?

[OCinBuffalo]

Just now, LSHMEAB said:

You said the chances of hitting on one draft pick is equivalent to the chances of busting on 7. Remember?

Yes, I did, because they are absolutely == to 50%. 

[LSHMEAB]

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

Yes, I did, because they are absolutely == to 50%. 

Then why use the coin flip analogy? You presupposed that any given draft pick is a 50/50 proposition. If that's the case(which it's not), then the chances of hitting on a single draft pick is greater if given 7 cracks at it. The same way I have a better chance of getting a single heads if I have seven opportunities.

[OCinBuffalo]

Look, if I have to get a 8th grade math textbook, I will. I suggest you stop now.

 

Here's the right way to look at the relationship between players and picks, which also explains exactly WHY the value chart works the way it does. 

1. If I pick #1, I can literally pick any 1 player. If I pick #2, I can pick any player - the player that was picked #1. If I pick #3, I can pick any player minus the ones picked at #1 and #2. Thus the value of each successive pick is defined by what players are excluded from the players that are available for that pick.

 

2. Thus, the 161st pick's value is defined by the fact that 160 players are no longer available to be taken.

 

3. However, hitting on 161 has nothing to do with who was picked at 160, or who will be picked at 162. Player #161 will make plays/make the team/be considered a hit, regardless of whether each of the 160 players before before him, or after him, "hit".

 

4. What we get by trading all of 4-7 for 1 #3 is: a chance to pick when less players have already been taken. That's it. Whether that player hits, or whether players 4-7 hit, using the binary definition, is and ALWAYS WILL BE: 50%. 

14 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Then why use the coin flip analogy? You presupposed that any given draft pick is a 50/50 proposition. If that's the case(which it's not), then the chances of hitting on a single draft pick is greater if given 7 cracks at it. The same way I have a better chance of getting a single heads if I have seven opportunities.

Yes it is, if we use the "chance to hit on a draft pick" statement. You either hit or you don't. 

 

Jesus: they must love you at the roulette table. If you pick 23 for 10 spins one night, and then 100 spins the next, do you think you have a better chance to win the 2nd night? NO! Bad!

 

You don't, and therefore, you should lifetime ban yourself from playing roulette.

Edited April 10, 2019 by OCinBuffalo

[Warcodered]

17 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Look, if I have to get a 8th grade math textbook, I will. I suggest you stop now.

 

Here's the right way to look at the relationship between players and picks, which also explains exactly WHY the value chart works the way it does. 

1. If I pick #1, I can literally pick any 1 player. If I pick #2, I can pick any player - the player that was picked #1. If I pick #3, I can pick any player besides the ones picked at #1 and #2. Thus the value of each successive pick is defined by what players are excluded from the players I available for that pick.

 

2. Thus, the 161st pick value is defined by the fact that 160 players are no longer available to be taken.

 

3. However, hitting on 161 has nothing to do with who was picked at 160, or who will be picked at 162. Player #161 will make plays/make the team/be considered a hit, regardless of whether each of the 160 players before before him, or after him, "hit".

 

4. What we get by trading all of 4-7 for 1 #3 is: a chance to pick when less players have already been taken. That's it. Whether that player hits, or whether players 4-7 hit, using the binary definition, is and ALWAYS WILL BE: 50%. 

So if you have 7 picks does that mean you have a 99% chance of one of them being a hit?

[LSHMEAB]

20 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

 

 

Jesus: they must love you at the roulette table. If you pick 23 for 10 spins one night, and then 100 spins the next, do you think you have a better chance to win the 2nd night? 

 

 

Yes.

[OCinBuffalo]

16 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So if you have 7 picks does that mean you have a 99% chance of one of them being a hit?

No, it means you have 50% chance that any of them, all of them, some of them, or none of them...will be a hit. Again, using the statement "hit on draft pick", and as I said in the beginning, "setting aside the subjective evaluation, of a hit, being a hit". If a guy is drafted and makes the team, is that a hit? How about the PS? Is that a hit? These are subjective evaluations. If a guy is drafted #9 overall, makes the team but doesn't make the Pro-Bowl, is that a hit? That's a subjective standard AND a subjective expectation. But, if that's the standard then he is either a hit, or a miss.

 

Regardless of how we define "hit", once we have, the guy either meets the subjective criteria of being a "hit", or he doesn't, so he's a "miss". 

 

Thus, this is a binary, as defined. One can come up with irrational standards, like "if every pick the Bills make isn't a starter, they are not a hit, but every pick other teams make are hits if the merely make the team". That's not just subjective, it's irrational, and therefore must be rejected.

 

No. Once you decide on a rational methodology of determining which pick is a hit, and apply it rationally and evenly, then, every pick is STILL: either a hit or a miss, and STILL has a chance of 50% for either.

12 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Yes.

Then you should ask for your parent's property tax $ back and/or sue your teachers, because that is flat out wrong.

 

On every single spin you have 1/38 chance or 37 to 1 odds of 23 hitting. If 23 comes up 3 times, or never, it had 37 to 1 odds each time, every time. For the rest time, for each spin of that wheel 23 has a 37 to 1 chance, no matter what.

Edited April 10, 2019 by OCinBuffalo

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

No, it means you have 50% chance that any of them, all of them, some of them, or none of them...will be a hit. Again, using the statement "hit on draft pick", and as I said in the beginning, "setting aside the subjective evaluation, of a hit, being a hit". If a guy is drafted and makes the team, is that a hit? How about the PS? Is that a hit? These are subjective evaluations. If a guy is drafted #9 overall, makes the team but doesn't make the Pro-Bowl, is that a hit? That's a subjective standard AND a subjective expectation. But, if that's the standard then he is either a hit, or a miss.

 

Regardless of how we define "hit", once we have, the guy either meets the subjective criteria of being a "hit", or he doesn't, so he's a "miss". 

 

Thus, this is a binary, as defined. One can come up with irrational standards, like "if every pick the Bills make isn't a starter, they are not a hit, but every pick other teams make are hits if the merely make the team". That's not just subjective, it's irrational, and therefore must be rejected.

 

No. Once you decide on a rational methodology of determining which pick is a hit, and apply it rationally and evenly, then, every pick is STILL: either a hit or a miss, and STILL has a chance of 50% for either.

But I'm not talking about 1 pick I'm talking about 7. If I flip a coin 7 times there are 128 possible outcomes 127 of which involve me getting heads at least once.