Draft capital spent on offense since 2020. Bills 32

[Magox]

11 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Thank you @Magox.

 

"How Sharp Football Total Draft Value is Calculated

The draft value metric is a valuation on draft capital based on a combination of average performance delivered and average dollars earned on second contracts.

This is based on two public models:

AV model created by Chase Stuart: Performance delivered based on the draft slot

OTC model created by Brad Spielberger and Jason Fitzgerald: Contractual earnings for non-rookie deals based on draft slot

When used together, our Sharp Football Total Draft Value metric gives a good picture of the average rookie contract value of each pick along with the longer-term value of the players selected at each pick."

 

Because he didn't reference this in his original tweet, apparently we're all supposed to know and accept the greatness of the methodology and the scoring system he named after himself.

 

 

That’s a fair critique on the branding—calling it the 'Sharp Football' value when it’s a hybrid of Stuart and Fitzgerald-Spielberger can definitely come across as a bit full of himself.

That said, even if the ego is there, I haven’t found him to be a hack. He’s extremely data-driven, and I like that since I consider myself to be very data driven and while I’m not saying this is the case with you at all, I think sometimes his data points get pushed back on simply because they challenge our internal narratives or gut feelings about the game.

I’m the first to admit that looking at a singular data point is impossible for drawing conclusions; data without context is just noise. But when you digest enough of it, a pretty clear formula starts to emerge. From what I’ve seen, the blueprint for success is: find the franchise QB, secure the right coaching staff, and once that QB is in place, prioritize the defense over the offense to close the gap.

I just find the methodology interesting because it tries to account for both on-field production and the actual economic value of the contract. It’s not the Bible, but it’s a a data point that fits into the puzzle of that conclusion.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

I’m likely gonna be wrong here, but it’s more situational from draft to draft, but the selection of the rounds one,  two, and three picks, by my ever so accurate memory lol, reflect an over all bias towards the defense during the McDermott era, and what appeared to be an inability or lack of desire ( for lack of a better word) to scout and then select above average talent at WR / offensive weapons over his time here, it was nearly a phobia, during his tenure…, this methodology left literally no choice but to go the most expensive route to get WRs in free agency, which didn’t help our cap situation,  but the past is the past, we will all have to wait and see how this all plays out, according to all myth and present rumor we “need” to lean towards defense yet again, sigh…, lol.  It was I think a three year period when we had a good group of WRs  Diggs Brown Beadsly and Davis, out of the nine years of Sean was running the show, I long for a group that good again. 

 

2017: D, O, O

2018: O, D, D, Traded (O)

2019: D, O, O

2020: Traded (O), D, O

2021: D, D, O

2022: D, O, D

2023: O, O, D

2024: O, D, Traded (D)

2025: D, D, D, Traded (O)

 

14-11 in favour of D without picks traded for vets included. 15-14 with them included. 

[JerseyBills]

The next 3 lowest all won a SB in that time.. 

 

[Don Otreply]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

2017: D, O, O

2018: O, D, D, Traded (O)

2019: D, O, O

2020: Traded (O), D, O

2021: D, D, O

2022: D, O, D

2023: O, O, D

2024: O, D, Traded (D)

2025: D, D, D, Traded (O)

 

14-11 in favour of D without picks traded for vets included. 15-14 with them included. 

Yes but when can we have an above averagely talented Wr room again damn it, lol 

 

it’s who we draft more so than the quantities, this goes for both sides of the ball, there have been questionable selections…, 

 

always appreciated your supported opinions here even when they get in my way, 👍

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Yes but when can we have an above averagely talented Wr room again damn it, lol 

 

it’s who we draft more so than the quantities, this goes for both sides of the ball, there have been questionable selections…, 

 

always appreciated your supported opinions here even when they get in my way, 👍

 

Oh there is no question there hasn't been enough on receiver. The three offensive traded away picks (3rd, Benjamin; 1st, Diggs; and 3rd, Cooper) were for receivers but the only one of the 25 "drafted" day one and two picks was a receiver (Coleman). In the same period it's 3 running backs; 2 tight ends; 3 inside linebackers..... that definitely doesn't scream positional value to me. 

[Magox]

Here he came out with the defensive draft capital, which slightly variates of how I interpreted the formula.  But very similar and the conclusions that some drew that naturally the worst teams will be on the left on both sides of the spectrum do not jive with these results.

 

 

Unlike the other charts the better teams were titled more to the left though not as prominent as the previous one where the bad teams were pretty much on the left side.   

Edited Wednesday at 03:48 PM by Magox

[BuffaloBillsGospel2014]

The problem is with this staff finding impact starters, Beane continues to get a pass because he help find us Josh Allen and James Cook. Other than those 2 players I don't see any high impact starters that Beane has drafted and that has been the biggest issue with us not being able to get to the Superbowl imo. When you spend a 2nd (AJ Epenesa), top 9 pick (Ed Oliver), 1st (Greg Rousseau), 2nd (Boogie Basham), 1st (Kaiir Elam) and only get marginal play especially in the playoffs then this is the results you get. I would have much rather the Bills concentrate on getting Allen all the help he needs and outscore all the opponents than keep trying to build a DL year in and year out now we're starting a brand new defensive system right in the middle of our SB window. Like every year I hope they continue to give Josh all the tools he needs to succeed but I'm almost certain this is going to be a defense dominant draft and everything will fall on Allen getting it done and praying Moore doesn't miss anytime with injury or we're right back to square 1 , rinse and repeat.

[Alphadawg7]

16 hours ago, DJB said:

 

To the surprise of absolutely nobody 

Bills have had the #1 offense in the NFL that span, also traded away a first for a top 5 WR, and hit on most of their offensive investments.

 

When you hit on offensive players - you need to spend less capital on it.

 

OCyrus, Cook, traded a first for Diggs, Davis, Shakir, Brown, Kincaid.

 

They were not only hits, they were some of our best players and most are still with the team as starters.

 

So no disrespect, but the only real non surprise here is the complete lack of context from this stat that doesn’t paint the picture you think it does.

Edited Wednesday at 06:56 PM by Alphadawg7

[streetkings01]

Listening to the charts, analytics, and WGR, you’d think the Bills are a dysfunctional franchise.

Reality: consistent double-digit wins and top-tier offenses year after year.

[BillsShredder83]

13 hours ago, Virgil said:

Look at this draft.   They could go all defense and wouldn’t be wrong to do so.  
 

Maybe we look for a WR3 or G, but we very well might now.  
 

And would they be wrong?   I don’t know 

How many times do we have to keep trying that though? New system is a valid enough excuse, but damn weve done the HEAVY defense so many times.

 

Why not double down on, "the only QB in NFL history" ? Grab an X WR high, grab one of the top Guards - be open to a 2nd one (preferably LG - guy from Iowa & ND usually around in the 4th, but a solid RG prospect isn't nuts either with Torrence potentially leaving), throw another pick at one of the pure speedsters like Brennan Thompson.

 

I know they cant do exactly this, but I think they should take a season with a heavy offensive mindset while still giving proper respect to BPA. 1 high WR, early day 3 guard, later rd receiver, if a nice LT falls maybe you consider getting Schnowman's replacement in house early.

 

I dont believe we are SERIOUS top contenders this year, too much turnover with defense/coaches.  Make this part of a 2 year plan, and re-open a serious window 2027

[billsfan89]

It's a bit of a flawed chart as the Bills are probably towards the bottom of total draft capital since 2020 given that they have been an 11 win or better team each season since 2020 and in 2019 were coming off a 10 win season. 

[TFBillsfan]

Not surprising but it just reinforces the amount of resources allotted to the D that has failed to produce when it matters. 

[Albany,n.y.]

6 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Another dumb chart from Sharp. Teams with more draft capital spend more feat capital on offense (and defense). In other news, water is wet. A chart showing % of draft capital would be way more interesting. 
 

Another reason that the chart is dumb is because one has to view free agency, the draft & trades all together when evaluating if the team is spending enough total resources on O, D or ST.  

[MDH]

And yet, the Bills offensive scoring metrics are the best in the league since 2020.

PPG rank by season.

2025 4th

2024 2nd

2023 6th

2022 2nd

2021 3rd

2020 2nd

Since 2020, the Buffalo Bills have operated the top-ranked NFL offense, leading in total yards (38,065), points (2,896), and points per game (29.0). 

If the offense is continuously at the top of the league and it’s the D that keeps failing it makes since to try and “fix” the D by investing more.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

That’s a fair critique on the branding—calling it the 'Sharp Football' value when it’s a hybrid of Stuart and Fitzgerald-Spielberger can definitely come across as a bit full of himself.

That said, even if the ego is there, I haven’t found him to be a hack. He’s extremely data-driven, and I like that since I consider myself to be very data driven and while I’m not saying this is the case with you at all, I think sometimes his data points get pushed back on simply because they challenge our internal narratives or gut feelings about the game.

I’m the first to admit that looking at a singular data point is impossible for drawing conclusions; data without context is just noise. But when you digest enough of it, a pretty clear formula starts to emerge. From what I’ve seen, the blueprint for success is: find the franchise QB, secure the right coaching staff, and once that QB is in place, prioritize the defense over the offense to close the gap.

I just find the methodology interesting because it tries to account for both on-field production and the actual economic value of the contract. It’s not the Bible, but it’s a a data point that fits into the puzzle of that conclusion.

 

If I am understanding it right though it is actually adding in the value of the pick having worked out? So like the Bills spending #33 on Keon wouldn't be the same as the value of the Bengals spending #33 on Higgins? 

 

And if that is the case, fine. We know some of the Bills swings on O haven't fully worked out. But they weren't to know that when they made the picks? So this is less about spending capital and as much about it working out.

[skibum]

If you look at the chart, most of the league's best teams are in the lower half. So I guess we win?

[Magox]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If I am understanding it right though it is actually adding in the value of the pick having worked out? So like the Bills spending #33 on Keon wouldn't be the same as the value of the Bengals spending #33 on Higgins? 

 

And if that is the case, fine. We know some of the Bills swings on O haven't fully worked out. But they weren't to know that when they made the picks? So this is less about spending capital and as much about it working out.

Almost - I think the confusion is between Draft Capital (the cost) and Draft Success (the result).

Sharp’s model is purely about the cost. It uses Stuart’s AV to say, in your example 'Historically, the #33 pick is a high-performance asset,' and the Fitzgerald-Spielberger model to say, 'The market typically pays a #33 pick a lot of money on their second contract.'

So, the Bills spending #33 on Keon and the Bengals spending #33 on Higgins are identical in terms of capital spent. Both teams 'paid' the same price for the player. The fact that the Bills' swings haven't always worked out just means they are getting a poor ROI on their capital—but it doesn't change the fact that they are prioritizing their most expensive 'chips' on the offensive side of the ball, in that particular instance.

 

Edited Wednesday at 05:22 PM by Magox

[GunnerBill]

22 minutes ago, Magox said:

Almost - I think the confusion is between Draft Capital (the cost) and Draft Success (the result).

Sharp’s model is purely about the cost. It uses Stuart’s AV to say, in your example 'Historically, the #33 pick is a high-performance asset,' and the Fitzgerald-Spielberger model to say, 'The market typically pays a #33 pick a lot of money on their second contract.'

So, the Bills spending #33 on Keon and the Bengals spending #33 on Higgins are identical in terms of capital spent. Both teams 'paid' the same price for the player. The fact that the Bills' swings haven't always worked out just means they are getting a poor ROI on their capital—but it doesn't change the fact that they are prioritizing their most expensive 'chips' on the offensive side of the ball, in that particular instance.

 

 

Got you. Thanks.

[folz]

A few notes:

 

-The Bills are the only NFL team to make the playoffs in every season since 2020. 

-The Bills have statistically had the best offense since 2020.

-The Bills have the best QB in the league.

-The Bills have more wins than any other NFL team since 2020.

 

Stands to reason that they would have less draft capital overall than most teams, pick lower than most teams, and haven't needed to spend as much on offense because they have been so good, etc.

 

Now, looking at 1st and 2nd round draft picks since 2020, the Bills have selected 7 defensive players and 5 offensive players in the first two rounds. But, they also spent a first (draft capital) on Diggs. So, including him, the Bills have selected 7 defensive players with an overall average draft selection of 43.57, and the Bills have selected 6 offensive players with an overall draft selection of 48. 

 

Also, a number of times over the last year or two, I have shown that by actual numbers (number of players), it is almost dead even between offensive and defensive players added via draft and free agency.

 

So, I kind of feel like the narrative of favoring defense in the McD era is just another talking point that keeps getting repeated, but isn't actually that accurate. It seems more perception than fact. Now, how those players have fared is another discussion (as to how well we draft offense vs. defense or whatever). But as far as asset spending, it is a very slight advantage to the defense, but not enough to be a talking point, imo.

 

[Don't really care to spend the time to try and understand "Sharp's" method, or what he is trying to indicate by it.]

 

[colin]

1 hour ago, folz said:

A few notes:

 

-The Bills are the only NFL team to make the playoffs in every season since 2020. 

-The Bills have statistically had the best offense since 2020.

-The Bills have the best QB in the league.

-The Bills have more wins than any other NFL team since 2020.

 

Stands to reason that they would have less draft capital overall than most teams, pick lower than most teams, and haven't needed to spend as much on offense because they have been so good, etc.

 

Now, looking at 1st and 2nd round draft picks since 2020, the Bills have selected 7 defensive players and 5 offensive players in the first two rounds. But, they also spent a first (draft capital) on Diggs. So, including him, the Bills have selected 7 defensive players with an overall average draft selection of 43.57, and the Bills have selected 6 offensive players with an overall draft selection of 48. 

 

Also, a number of times over the last year or two, I have shown that by actual numbers (number of players), it is almost dead even between offensive and defensive players added via draft and free agency.

 

So, I kind of feel like the narrative of favoring defense in the McD era is just another talking point that keeps getting repeated, but isn't actually that accurate. It seems more perception than fact. Now, how those players have fared is another discussion (as to how well we draft offense vs. defense or whatever). But as far as asset spending, it is a very slight advantage to the defense, but not enough to be a talking point, imo.

 

[Don't really care to spend the time to try and understand "Sharp's" method, or what he is trying to indicate by it.]

 

 

if they created a chart that showed the total draft capital spent on any position, we'd be in the bottom 3 or 4 since 2020 because we've had a top 3 or 4 record over that time.  the rams are super low because they've had a good (not as good overall) record but also love to trade draft picks.

 

i think the chart needs some kind of context, basically teams that had bad records will be on the left and teams w good records will be on the right, and it doesn't necessarily reflect the favoring of one side of the ball.

 

a more useful measure would be the % of draft capital spent on position groups, or sides of the ball.  if we spent every pick on the O, and had the same record every year, we'd still be like 20th or lower on that chart, and the jets would still be number 1, just because they suck and get high value picks.