Jump to content

NFL Draft Success - Past 4 years


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The Seahawks are the hardest to fathom. They are consistently bad first round drafters. They have not had a single first round pick make it to a 2nd contract with the team in 10 years. Earl Thomas who was their second first round pick in 2010 was the last and there are a number of flat out busts among the remainder. John Schneider has been better as a rule finding guys who can play later in the draft, but the reality is Russell Wilson has been covering up a lot of flaws on that team. If they get off to a slow start one year and go say 1-3 I think it could all unravel pretty fast there.

 

Green Bay have not drafted well for while now, a point I made a lot in the Jordan Love debates. There are a lot of moves to slam the Pack for before focusing on them taking a shot at the future in the most important position on the field. Their propensity to overdraft crappy DBs has been especially interesting. 

 

New England's drafting has also gone to pot. They had a 7 or 8 year stretch of fantastic drafting that built the team around Brady to make that second era of Superbowl runs. But the reason Tom looked around last year and thought "I'm off" is because that supply line has tapered off. Other than oline and secondary there is very little talent on that roster. 

 

 

Part of that - by no means all of it, but part of it - relates to the fact that in those last ten drafts they've only made six first round picks. They have traded them away, and generally done pretty well on the trades. But yeah, they're an interesting example.

 

And yeah, the Pats drafted so well for so many years, and then the wheels fell off lately. I so wonder what happened. Did they lose a draft guy or two, like an assistant GM at that point, or a director of scouting? I haven't kept track closely enough, but it's a remarkable turnaround.

Edited by Thurman#1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Colts Twitter put this up today. Curious to see how it aligns with my analysis that I did a few months back. To the naked eye, it looks like most teams remain in the same bin in this analysis that the

I don't know. I've heard on here many times about how Beane sucks in the draft and has only hit on Josh Allen. The people on here have to know it all, right?

🤣   This board is almost as bad as the people who call WGR and get on air to offer the worst opinions ever  

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Part of that - by no means all of it, but part of it - relates to the fact that in those last ten drafts they've only made six first round picks. They have traded them away, and generally done pretty well on the trades. But yeah, they're an interesting example.

 

And yeah, the Pats drafted so well for so many years, and then the wheels fell off lately. I so wonder what happened. Did they lose a draft guy or two, like an assistant GM at that point, or a director of scouting? I haven't kept track closely enough, but it's a remarkable turnaround.

 

So on Seattle they have traded out a few times either sending picks for vets (think they spent a #1 on Harvin) but when they have done that they have normally missed with their first pick in the 2nd round too... years they had no first:

 

2013, their first pick in Round 2 was Christine Michael, RB - traded to Dallas for a conditional 7th at the start of his 3rd year

 

2014, their first pick in Round 2 was Paul Richardson, WR - had one good year, his contract year where he had 700 yards and 6 TDs. Other than that 3 years in Seattle and two in Washington never passed 300 yards receiving.

 

2015, Frank Clark, DE - okay that one was a hit but even then he didn't make a 2nd contract. Tagged and traded for a 1st round pick before his 5th season.

 

2017, Malick McDowell, DT - total bust, cut after two years and has spent time in prison (though I confess I liked him in that draft too) more an off field / behaviour issue.

 

So even if you say "their first pick of the draft for the last 10 years" there is still only one HIT and 0 2nd contract players. 

 

On New England the guy whose departure coincided with the drop off in drafting was Bob Quinn. But his absolute failure in Detroit makes it hard for me to believe he was the genius behind the throne... though it is fair that some people are better assistants than leaders, so maybe I guess it could have been that?

Edited by GunnerBill
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:

🤣

 

This board is almost as bad as the people who call WGR and get on air to offer the worst opinions ever

 


How about Sean’s rant on the Sabres the other day?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The Seahawks are the hardest to fathom. They are consistently bad first round drafters. They have not had a single first round pick make it to a 2nd contract with the team in 10 years. Earl Thomas who was their second first round pick in 2010 was the last and there are a number of flat out busts among the remainder. John Schneider has been better as a rule finding guys who can play later in the draft, but the reality is Russell Wilson has been covering up a lot of flaws on that team. If they get off to a slow start one year and go say 1-3 I think it could all unravel pretty fast there.

 

Green Bay have not drafted well for while now, a point I made a lot in the Jordan Love debates. There are a lot of moves to slam the Pack for before focusing on them taking a shot at the future in the most important position on the field. Their propensity to overdraft crappy DBs has been especially interesting. 

 

New England's drafting has also gone to pot. They had a 7 or 8 year stretch of fantastic drafting that built the team around Brady to make that second era of Superbowl runs. But the reason Tom looked around last year and thought "I'm off" is because that supply line has tapered off. Other than oline and secondary there is very little talent on that roster. 


I wasn’t surprised on these teams.  The Packs have been flawed on their defensive picks during this four year period.  The Pats have been a bad drafting team as well, and Wilson has commented how he is not surrounded with solid o line talent.

 

Its true, Rodgers, Brady and Wilson have covered up a lot of flaws, and as much as so many Bills fans hate Brady, he had grown weary of BB not hitting on weapons.  So as usual, we’ll articulated GB.

 

PT101, thank you for the kind words and you couldn’t be more accurate that all drafts are still a game of chance, and there are no sure things.  Lastly, the draft is only part of any story.  To evaluate a team, the hardest part is sizing up drafting, choosing when to trade away draft picks for solid veterans, ie. Diggs, UDFA hits, and quality FA pick ups at the right price.

 

Per his peers, the NFL seems to think Beane was the best overall GM for 2020.  The sin as was stated by others a month ago is giving Coach of the Year to Stefanski over McD.  That was a real sin.

Edited by machine gun kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So on Seattle they have traded out a few times either sending picks for vets (think they spent a #1 on Harvin) but when they have done that they have normally missed with their first pick in the 2nd round too... years they had no first:

 

2013, their first pick in Round 2 was Christine Michael, RB - traded to Dallas for a conditional 7th at the start of his 3rd year

 

2014, their first pick in Round 2 was Paul Richardson, WR - had one good year, his contract year where he had 700 yards and 6 TDs. Other than that 3 years in Seattle and two in Washington never passed 300 yards receiving.

 

2015, Frank Clark, DE - okay that one was a hit but even then he didn't make a 2nd contract. Tagged and traded for a 1st round pick before his 5th season.

 

2017, Malick McDowell, DT - total bust, cut after two years and has spent time in prison (though I confess I liked him in that draft too) more an off field / behaviour issue.

 

So even if you say "their first pick of the draft for the last 10 years" there is still only one HIT and 0 2nd contract players. 

 

On New England the guy whose departure coincided with the drop off in drafting was Bob Quinn. But his absolute failure in Detroit makes it hard for me to believe he was the genius behind the throne... though it is fair that some people are better assistants than leaders, so maybe I guess it could have been that?

 

 

Seeing you mention Bob Quinn sent me off on a quick fact-finding trip. Wasn't he director of Pro Personnel his last four years there? That's what I can find with only a very quick look, though.

 

I see Caserio was director of Player Personnel from 2008 to 2020, he wouldn't seem to be responsible for things changing abruptly four or five years ago.

 

But yeah, some guys are better assistants than leaders. And some guys need certain kinds of work environments to be at their best, and perhaps that type of environment was not to be found in Detroit - which seems possible with what a tire fire they've been for so long. Or perhaps the scouts in New England were better than the Detroit scouts. A GM without good scouts is not going to look good.

 

Oh, well, it's beyond me.

 

And interesting that in the years they didn't have 1 round picks they didn't do very well with their 2nds.

 

I have always thought Wilson was under-rated, right from his first year there. He indeed covers up lots of problems, always has, to me.

 

If they're even half-smart they'd better find a way to make him happy and keep him.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea Quinn was more on the pro side as I understand it. But his arrival and departure in the front office kinda lines up timing wise. Might be total coincidence I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

It’s not my fault you don’t understand... and I’m not about to explain it all over again here when it’s already been done in another thread... that’s why the thread was included. 

 

You can either read my methodology in the other thread and that will explain what those numbers mean... or you can read the title on the damn graph in the Tweet and that will explain what those numbers mean. Something tells me that regardless of what any data tells you, you’re just the type to think you’re always right. 

 

Do you really need me to hold your hand? 

 

EDIT: I’ll regretfully hold your hand and attach the article explaining the tweet too... I did this really difficult thing where I googled the title of the graph and the first result was the article. 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-historical-draft-success-for-all-32-nfl-teams

Wasn’t your methodology basically exposed as highly flawed? Nice attempt to revise a thread and Pat yourself on the back for a thread and analytic tool that was essentially exposed as bull####. 😅

 

I get it. The PFF system seems more accurate.... still these analytics put higher value on average players or JAGs because of where they are drafted and their playing time/salary....it really doesn’t tell the whole story. It puts too much value on contributors and not enough on impact players....which is where Buffalo has struggled and why some have suggested their drafts haven’t been all that impressive. 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side-note, I find it particularly hilarious that the team with draft "Experts", Chuckie and Mayock, have managed to dig their way to 3rd-from-last... So much for "experts" pundits knowing... Anything.

Screen Shot 2021-03-06 at 9.46.42 AM.png

Edited by ROCBillsBeliever
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Can anyone actually explain what these numbers mean? Or do you just put a chart with numbers on it and say “see, I told you!”

 

this is the exact same reaction I had when looking at their graph...  "percentile outcomes for each draft pick".  Huh?  Like what is the measure here?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

It puts too much value on contributors and not enough on impact players....which is where Buffalo has struggled and why some have suggested their drafts haven’t been all that impressive. 

 

 

 

I agree with the bolded. All these systems put too much stock on guys who just start. The Falcons are the perfect example. A lot of their picks the last 3 years are on the field and are sucking which is why they have posted three consecutive losing seasons as they have used them to backfill expensive guys off the roster that made the Superbowl.

 

I am in less agreement with the last bit. The Bills have still drafted well, but the lack of difference makers is why the eye test to me would have them more in the 6-10 range than the 1-5 range.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Wasn’t your methodology basically exposed as highly flawed? Nice attempt to revise a thread and Pat yourself on the back for a thread and analytic tool that was essentially exposed as bull####. 😅

 

I get it. The PFF system seems more accurate.... still these analytics put higher value on average players or JAGs because of where they are drafted and their playing time/salary....it really doesn’t tell the whole story. It puts too much value on contributors and not enough on impact players....which is where Buffalo has struggled and why some have suggested their drafts haven’t been all that impressive. 

 

 

Lol... what did I say... no matter what you’re shown... you’re going to say you’re right. 

 

My methodology was not highly flawed... it’s definitely not perfect and it doesn’t have the same capabilities a model like PFF just created has...I made that very clear the minute I posted my initial analysis. Oddly enough it’s similar to an analysis PFF did last year that I just found linked at the top of the new article.. It was an attempt from someone to quantify something, rather than just behave off their biases. I know that’s a foreign concept to you. 
 

One guy decided to argue with me saying that surplus value isn’t a real thing... although oddly enough PFF mentions it routinely in that article. So if that’s you’re barometer for things being “highly flawed” sure. I know surplus value is a foreign concept to many, but folks that work in pro sports know all about it. 
 

You just proved to me that you have zero desire to actually learn something new, you’d rather just say you’re right... because nowhere in PFF’s methodology did they mention anything about using playing time or salary in their model. Absolutely nowhere was playing time or salary factored in. Funny enough playing time and salary wasn’t factored into my model either... 
 

Let me continue to hold your hand and show you what PFF said... hits on high draft picks are valued higher and hits on more valuable positions are valued higher...

 

A 90th-percentile hit in the top 10 is obviously much more impactful for a franchise than a 90th-percentile hit in the seventh round, as the former would generate almost 2 WAR over four years, while the latter separates from his peers by simply making the roster and generating roughly 0.2 WAR over four years.

This sounds intuitive, and it’s supported by hard data: When correlating the average percentile of a team's top-100 draft picks over the last four years to point differential in a season, the result is much larger than when we do the same with draft picks beyond the top 100. The New Orleans Saints turn out to be the top team in terms of draft consistency, mostly because their busts came in later rounds — almost entirely inconsequential for a franchise. This explains why the Saints won the NFC South four times straight after going 7-9 three years straight before 2017.

 

 

As I have already mentioned, we described draft success as teams might think about it. When a guard at No. 6 becomes a three-time All-Pro player after three years, it’s as good a pick as one could imagine.

However, since offensive guards have relatively low value compared to other positions, Nelson lands in “only” the 93rd percentile when compared to the full distribution of all players selected in his range. Of course, this is still exceptional, but it’s a small difference and illustrates that the absolute ceiling for a top-10 guard seems to be the 93rd percentile. After all, it's hard to imagine a better guard than Quenton Nelson. When we measure draft success by comparing each draft pick (non-quarterbacks) to the distribution of outcomes of all players drafted in the same range, we reward the selection of valuable positions. When doing this, we get a pretty good impression of why the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl.

 

If you’re gonna sit here and call me out... get your facts straight. You’re the type of guy that reads a headline and pretends he knows the whole story. Although I don’t even know if that’s true because you couldn’t read the title on a graph. 

Edited by JGMcD2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

agree with the bolded. All these systems put too much stock on guys who just start. The Falcons are the perfect example. A lot of their picks the last 3 years are on the field and are sucking which is why they have posted three consecutive losing seasons as they have used them to backfill expensive guys off the roster that made the Superbowl.

Gunner, the bolded just isn’t true for PFF’s model. I highly encourage you to go read the article explaining everything in detail. 
 

My model using AV I guess inadvertently  did incorporate playing time (it’s part of the formula for assigning the value) but it was my only option... I made it very clear the model wasn’t perfect and quite frankly if I had the resources that PFF does it would look something more like what they created... but they’re a large company that does this for a serious profit and I’m one person that works in professional baseball and has zero private football resources.

 

Alas, I’m a fool for trying to measure something objectively rather than everyone have a dick swinging contest about what they know about football even though it’s rooted in personal bias. 

 

PFF’s system is much more complex than a guy starting. It’s based on all of the possible outcomes at that pick and positional value. They give some really good examples in there that I think you would like. 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-historical-draft-success-for-all-32-nfl-teams

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Gunner, the bolded just isn’t true for PFF’s model. I highly encourage you to go read the article explaining everything in detail. 
 

My model using AV I guess inadvertently  did incorporate playing time (it’s part of the formula for assigning the value) but it was my only option... I made it very clear the model wasn’t perfect and quite frankly if I had the resources that PFF does it would look something more like what they created... but they’re a large company that does this for a serious profit and I’m one person that works in professional baseball and has zero private football resources.

 

Alas, I’m a fool for trying to measure something objectively rather than everyone have a dick swinging contest about what they know about football even though it’s rooted in personal bias. 

 

PFF’s system is much more complex than a guy starting. It’s based on all of the possible outcomes at that pick and positional value. They give some really good examples in there that I think you would like. 

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-historical-draft-success-for-all-32-nfl-teams

 

Which leads me to question how the hell they get the Falcons 13th best. They have literally only drafted 2 good players in the period specified.  

 

Edit: and one of those is a guard which the article itself says is devalued. And they overdrafted him at #14.

Edited by GunnerBill
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Which leads me to question how the hell they get the Falcons 13th best. They have literally only drafted 2 good players in the period specified.  

 

Edit: and one of those is a guard which the article itself says is devalued. And they overdrafted him at #14.

Other teams are also really bad at drafting is my guess...? It seems like they have some decent guys they’ve found in later rounds... nothing special, but maybe enough to separate them from the pack slightly... this is just from me looking at names? A lot of their higher percentile outcomes were later round picks, some early round picks were decent outcomes but not spectacular... and almost all of their misses were early round picks indicated by a larger dot in the graph. 

 

A lot of the teams after them have been quite atrocious as well. It doesn’t really say the Falcons have been good at all.. it just says they’re slightly better than other teams.... this is actually what I initially set out to prove with my analysis. People here are so fixated on the Bills and how “bad” they draft that they don’t realize you can only be good or bad by comparison and compared to the rest of the league they’re better. 

 

I wish I could interact with the plot... because it looks like Buffalo has a nice mix of early and later rounds there... but most their misses have been in the early rounds... which we all seem to agree on... they’ve had some guys that haven’t necessarily generated a great ROI. 

Edited by JGMcD2
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JGMcD2 said:

Lol... what did I say... no matter what you’re shown... you’re going to say you’re right. 

 

My methodology was not highly flawed... it’s definitely not perfect and it doesn’t have the same capabilities a model like PFF just created has...I made that very clear the minute I posted my initial analysis. Oddly enough it’s similar to an analysis PFF did last year that I just found linked at the top of the new article.. It was an attempt from someone to quantify something, rather than just behave off their biases. I know that’s a foreign concept to you. 
 

One guy decided to argue with me saying that surplus value isn’t a real thing... although oddly enough PFF mentions it routinely in that article. So if that’s you’re barometer for things being “highly flawed” sure. I know surplus value is a foreign concept to many, but folks that work in pro sports know all about it. 
 

You just proved to me that you have zero desire to actually learn something new, you’d rather just say you’re right... because nowhere in PFF’s methodology did they mention anything about using playing time or salary in their model. Absolutely nowhere was playing time or salary factored in. Funny enough playing time and salary wasn’t factored into my model either... 
 

Let me continue to hold your hand and show you what PFF said... hits on high draft picks are valued higher and hits on more valuable positions are valued higher...

 

A 90th-percentile hit in the top 10 is obviously much more impactful for a franchise than a 90th-percentile hit in the seventh round, as the former would generate almost 2 WAR over four years, while the latter separates from his peers by simply making the roster and generating roughly 0.2 WAR over four years.

This sounds intuitive, and it’s supported by hard data: When correlating the average percentile of a team's top-100 draft picks over the last four years to point differential in a season, the result is much larger than when we do the same with draft picks beyond the top 100. The New Orleans Saints turn out to be the top team in terms of draft consistency, mostly because their busts came in later rounds — almost entirely inconsequential for a franchise. This explains why the Saints won the NFC South four times straight after going 7-9 three years straight before 2017.

 

 

As I have already mentioned, we described draft success as teams might think about it. When a guard at No. 6 becomes a three-time All-Pro player after three years, it’s as good a pick as one could imagine.

However, since offensive guards have relatively low value compared to other positions, Nelson lands in “only” the 93rd percentile when compared to the full distribution of all players selected in his range. Of course, this is still exceptional, but it’s a small difference and illustrates that the absolute ceiling for a top-10 guard seems to be the 93rd percentile. After all, it's hard to imagine a better guard than Quenton Nelson. When we measure draft success by comparing each draft pick (non-quarterbacks) to the distribution of outcomes of all players drafted in the same range, we reward the selection of valuable positions. When doing this, we get a pretty good impression of why the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl.

 

If you’re gonna sit here and call me out... get your facts straight. You’re the type of guy that reads a headline and pretends he knows the whole story. Although I don’t even know if that’s true because you couldn’t read the title on a graph. 

No need to hold my hand dude.... I don’t need charts, and WAR, and heat maps to tell me that the Bills have drafted solid contributors that past few years, but have not been getting true difference makers outside of say Josh Allen, Tre White, and Dion Dawkins(the last two were McD picks, not Beane). 
 

I value the “eye test” a hell of a lot more than analytics,  and the Bills got their asses handed to them against the Chiefs because they have too many ok contributors and not enough true difference makers like the AFC Champs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

No need to hold my hand dude.... I don’t need charts, and WAR, and heat maps to tell me that the Bills have drafted solid contributors that past few years, but have not been getting true difference makers outside of say Josh Allen, Tre White, and Dion Dawkins(the last two were McD picks, not Beane). 
 

I value the “eye test” a hell of a lot more than analytics,  and the Bills got their asses handed to them against the Chiefs because they have too many ok contributors and not enough true difference makers like the AFC Champs. 

Subjective eye test > objective numbers... that’s just willfully ignorant but it’s your choice. The “eye test” has been proven by psychologists as just confirming biases that you’ve created for yourself over time in day to day life. Fine, we’ll completely ignore numbers and science in favor of our gut. You’re allowed to mix both you know...? 

 

You named 3 true difference makers drafted in the last 4 years for Buffalo... how may true difference makers have the AFC Champs drafted in the last 4 years? How many difference makers do you expect a team to draft per year? How many difference makers have other teams drafted in the past 4 years? 
 

You keep referencing heat maps as if they’re bad... can you explain to me why those are bad? Like in baseball they’re used in advanced scouting to help give pitchers an idea of where hitters struggle and what pitches they struggle with... is there another way with the naked eye to determine that and communicate it more effectively? 

Edited by JGMcD2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Subjective eye test > objective numbers... that’s just willfully ignorant but it’s your choice. The “eye test” has been proven by psychologists as just confirming biases that you’ve created for yourself over time in day to day life. Fine, we’ll completely ignore numbers and science in favor of our gut. You’re allowed to mix both you know...? 

 

You named 3 true difference makers drafted in the last 4 years for Buffalo... how may true difference makers have the AFC Champs drafted in the last 4 years? How many difference makers do you expect a team to draft per year? How many difference makers have other teams drafted in the past 4 years? 
 

You keep referencing heat maps as if they’re bad... can you explain to me why those are bad? Like in baseball they’re used in advanced scouting to help give pitchers an idea of where hitters struggle and what pitches they struggle with... is there another way with the naked eye to determine that and communicate it more effectively? 

I think your right that other teams are just really bad at drafting and the analytic flaw with this data is just what @GunnerBillis saying. There is something seriously wrong with data that suggest the Falcons are ranked 13th best in the league at drafting but the team has been a tire fire for the last few years and subsequently a lot of their high picks have been as well. 
 

A perfect Bills example could be Moss and Singletary. While both are productive players whom I’m sure helped contribute to the Bills positive grade in this analytic equation, neither of them tilt the scale in the Bills favor on game day. Both are players that can be easily replaced and the team as a whole can replicate similar production replacing either with a TJ Yeldon. 
 

It’s why I don’t take much stock into these things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I think your right that other teams are just really bad at drafting and the analytic flaw with this data is just what @GunnerBillis saying. There is something seriously wrong with data that suggest the Falcons are ranked 13th best in the league at drafting but the team has been a tire fire for the last few years and subsequently a lot of their high picks have been as well. 
 

A perfect Bills example could be Moss and Singletary. While both are productive players whom I’m sure helped contribute to the Bills positive grade in this analytic equation, neither of them tilt the scale in the Bills favor on game day. Both are players that can be easily replaced and the team as a whole can replicate similar production replacing either with a TJ Yeldon. 
 

It’s why I don’t take much stock into these things. 

Well if other teams really are bad at drafting... its it plausible that the Falcons are slightly better than other really bad drafting teams? The teams that come after ATL... it’s not like any of them are hitting home runs in the draft year after year after year either. 

 

Detroit

Cleveland

Jacksonville

Green Bay

Giants 

Seahawks

Chargers

Patriots

Broncos

Dolphins

Texans

Eagles

Bengals

Raiders

Cardinals 
 

What you’re saying about Singletary and Moss... PFFs model legitimately sifts through that for every team. It’s outcome is rooted in positional value and round drafted. A marginally contributing RB drafted in RD3 isn’t swaying anything in favor of the Bills in this model. 

 

Can you answer my questions please? 
 

You named 3 true difference makers drafted in the last 4 years for Buffalo... how may true difference makers have the AFC Champs drafted in the last 4 years? How many difference makers do you expect a team to draft per year? How many difference makers have other teams drafted in the past 4 years? 
 

You keep referencing heat maps as if they’re bad... can you explain to me why those are bad? Like in baseball they’re used in advanced scouting to help give pitchers an idea of where hitters struggle and what pitches they struggle with... is there another way with the naked eye to determine that and communicate it more effectively? 

Edited by JGMcD2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

No need to hold my hand dude.... I don’t need charts, and WAR, and heat maps to tell me that the Bills have drafted solid contributors that past few years, but have not been getting true difference makers outside of say Josh Allen, Tre White, and Dion Dawkins(the last two were McD picks, not Beane). 
 

I value the “eye test” a hell of a lot more than analytics,  and the Bills got their asses handed to them against the Chiefs because they have too many ok contributors and not enough true difference makers like the AFC Champs. 

then Eye this out. 

 

Tyreek Hill- 5th round draft pick. No one expected Hill to be what he is today

Travis Kelce was 2013.

Eric Fisher T drafted 2013

Chris Jones Drafted DT 2016 great pick

Frank Clark DE Drafted 2015

Tyrann Mathieu 2013

 

And you have Mahomes.. We wont get into that conversation again.

 

But these are there core stars? right? There PB selections? are any of these the last 4 years?

 

So lets take a closer look at your "eye test". I am going to post the picks and where they are at from the last 4 years? Cause that's what OP said.

 

2017

They have Mahomes 

Tanoh Kpassagnon had one sack last year with 28 combined tackles.

Kareem Hunt is in Clev. a product of an amazing running team.

the rest are producing very little or not even in KC 

 

2018

Speaks has shown 0

Nnadi turning out to be solid DT

After this other then there ST returner Smith there is nothing goonzd

 

2019

Hardman has been a solid WR.

Thornhil represents a solid S

The rest backups or zero's

 

2020

Helair IS a decent at best RB and a product of an amazing passing offense

The rest are back up, rotational or zero players.

 

Other then Mahomes... please for the love of god tell me how KC has done better then us drafting the last 4 years?

 

Key words

 

FOUR YEARS

BIG PICTURE

 

we have done better

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrimeTime101 said:

then Eye this out. 

 

Tyreek Hill- 5th round draft pick. No one expected Hill to be what he is today

Travis Kelce was 2013.

Eric Fisher T drafted 2013

Chris Jones Drafted DT 2016 great pick

Frank Clark DE Drafted 2015

Tyrann Mathieu 2013

 

And you have Mahomes.. We wont get into that conversation again.

 

But these are there core stars? right? There PB selections? are any of these the last 4 years?

 

So lets take a closer look at your "eye test". I am going to post the picks and where they are at from the last 4 years? Cause that's what OP said.

 

2017

They have Mahomes 

Tanoh Kpassagnon had one sack last year with 28 combined tackles.

Kareem Hunt is in Clev. a product of an amazing running team.

the rest are producing very little or not even in KC 

 

2018

Speaks has shown 0

Nnadi turning out to be solid DT

After this other then there ST returner Smith there is nothing goonzd

 

2019

Hardman has been a solid WR.

Thornhil represents a solid S

The rest backups or zero's

 

2020

Helair IS a decent at best RB and a product of an amazing passing offense

The rest are back up, rotational or zero players.

 

Other then Mahomes... please for the love of god tell me how KC has done better then us drafting the last 4 years?

 

Key words

 

FOUR YEARS

BIG PICTURE

 

we have done better

Excellent post.

 

You hit 2 key points for me:

1. As some have said, Beane/Bills have done a very good job drafting (17-current).

2. Mcdermott alluded to this after KC playoff loss, we are multiple years behind them, from the perspective that Reid/KC have had more time to finetune and construct the team.  We will be there, some will say we already are, but likely 1-2 years away from being a dominant force for a while.

 

I think the other major point, and I think Beane will get this done, is we are basically a TE and stud DE (or collective DL) away from being the team in the Afc.  I'd say less pressure to find the stud TE, maybe Knox eventually grows into a very good one.  But we have other weapons.  The DL is the key piece, we get that group more disruptive then it literally impacts every other spot on the defense...same could be said about OL, but I think we have 3 key pieces (if we resign Williams) and a potential solid G (Ford coming back), so way way further along.

 

Would really like to see us shed Addison, Butler, and Jefferson.  Sign another DT, use our 1st on a DE, then maybe another late (to compete with DJ).  Depending what they think on Star, I'm ok going after 2 new DTs (sign or draft).  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...