TSW NFL Draft Party West 2008

[Ramius]

You're hung up on subjectives- the study is based upon known numbers. There's nothing subjective- it proves that Pioli has spent 35% of his early draft investment in his DLine, 17% at TE and only 11% at WR. That's over a time when the Bills numbers are 16% DL, 0% TE and 18% WR.

 

You don't have to agree with Pioli, you don't have to think his team is doing it right, but the numbers don't lie. What he's doing is there for anyone objective to consider, and to use that known information to consider whether the clear differences between his positional draft approach and the approach of the Bills has something to do with our W/L record against his team over those past 7 years studied.

 

So if the pats had simply drafted Ryan Sims and Jonathan Sullivan instead of seymour and wilfork, they would be just as good as they are now, because they spent high picks on the DL.

[gggbills]

I've got your first-

 

 

 

Look forward to meeting you. The Hotel is nothing more than a place to pass out- it's decked out like an Austin Powers movie- but it's truly a stumble across to/from the bar. There'll be a Bill's party Saturday night too- we'll probably get a shuttle and go to it in one vehicle.

 

A Bill's party?? At the same place or somewhere else?

[Ramius]

I've offered the methodology- if you're half as smart as you play yourself off to be you can simply do the analysis you think you need. I'm concerned with how the Bills have drafted versus how the best teams do it- and that's the study I've done. It shows that we're deviating substantially from the best teams in these areas:

 

A) We have drafted offensive talent with 58% of our available investment in rounds 1 and 2 of the past 7 drafts, while the teams who have played in the past 5 Super Bowls have used more of their draft investment in rounds 1 and 2 of the same drafts more often to draft defensive players.

 

B) The Super Bowl teams have invested a huge percentage (9%) in Tight Ends at the top of the draft, we've invested 0%.

 

C) The Super Bowl teams have spent nearly one quarter of their total early draft total on their DLines, while spending less than 14% at the WR position. This is a stark contrast to the Buffalo Bill's spend, which amounts to 18% at the WR postion to date and less than 16% on our DL.

 

You don't like the numbers because they don't fit the fantasy you have about reaching for a WR this year at 11, but that doesn't change the trends. This is a mathematically mapped out trend of the top teams versus the Bills. Quit whining about the Falcons and 49ers information- if you want it use the math I outlined completely in the original post. I even offered to send my spreadsheet to anyone not a member of the "WR Reach at 11 Club" to conduct it for you. It's time for you to stojan up or let someone else in the stall.

 

So what happens when the super bowl winners are shown to be no different than the league average in drafting those positions?That means that there was some other factor at work besides "drafting DL early." Or worse yet, what happens when i find bad teams with similar %'s to the top teams.

 

I'm sure you're able to understand the statistical inadequacies of your lahjik, however you are simply ignoring them because it refutes the limited work you've done, much as you have in the past.

[AKC]

So what happens when the super bowl winners are shown to be no different than the league average in drafting those positions?That means that there was some other factor at work besides "drafting DL early." Or worse yet, what happens when i find bad teams with similar %'s to the top teams.

 

I'm sure you're able to understand the statistical inadequacies of your lahjik, however you are simply ignoring them because it refutes the limited work you've done, much as you have in the past.

 

As in life, those in the stands always have more to say than those on the playing field.

 

I've invited you onto the field. I'll anxiously await the results of your "comprehensive" study ;-)

[AKC]

A Bill's party?? At the same place or somewhere else?

 

It'll be on the Westside- I'll get transpo set up for cheap so there won't be any driving.

[GG]

You're hung up on subjectives- the study is based upon known numbers. There's nothing subjective- it proves that Pioli has spent 35% of his early draft investment in his DLine, 17% at TE and only 11% at WR. That's over a time when the Bills numbers are 16% DL, 0% TE and 18% WR.

 

You don't have to agree with Pioli, you don't have to think his team is doing it right, but the numbers don't lie. What he's doing is there for anyone objective to consider, and to use that known information to consider whether the clear differences between his positional draft approach and the approach of the Bills has something to do with our W/L record against his team over those past 7 years studied.

 

There is nothing more subjective than selecting the data set. Any reason you picked the last 7 drafts, instead of 10, 12, 15? If you are talking SB teams, they usually have solid contributions from 10+ yr vets, so limiting the draft analysis will distort the results relative to roster composition.

 

Having said that, I still have no idea on how you arrive at your numbers, as NFL draft data shows Bills selecting the following number of DLs in the last:

 

7 drafts - 4 DLs in top 64 picks

8 drafts - 5 DLs in top 64 picks

9 drafts - 6 DLs in top 64 picks

10 drafts - 6 DLs in top 64 picks

11 drafts - 6 DLs in top 64 picks

12 drafts - 7 DLs in top 64 picks

 

* selected in the last:

 

7 drafts - 4 DLs in top 64 picks

8 drafts - 4 DLs in top 64 picks

9 drafts - 4 DLs in top 64 picks

10 drafts - 4 DLs in top 64 picks

11 drafts - 5 DLs in top 64 picks

12 drafts - 5 DLs in top 64 picks

 

Both teams drafted a total of 18 DLs in the last 12 drafts.

 

So what does the above tell us?

 

Nothing, other than * have been better in identifying talent.

[Ramius]

As in life, those in the stands always have more to say than those on the playing field.

 

I've invited you onto the field. I'll anxiously await the results of your "comprehensive" study ;-)

 

Now the circle is complete.

 

You have throw some crap to the wall, thought it stuck, and when called out on it, you put the onus on others to "disprove" your incorrect pile of crap. Your lack of a coherent or complete analysis discredits itself. Theres no need for me to do any work. I cant disprove something that doesnt exist in the first place.

 

And, again, oyu are saying that the pats* would have been just as good if they had drafted sullivan and sims as opposed to wilfork/seymour?

[gggbills]

It'll be on the Westside- I'll get transpo set up for cheap so there won't be any driving.

 

Cool, I'll be there. Looking forward to meeting you

[AKC]

Now the circle is complete.

 

You have throw some crap to the wall, thought it stuck, and when called out on it, you put the onus on others to "disprove" your incorrect pile of crap. Your lack of a coherent or complete analysis discredits itself. Theres no need for me to do any work. I cant disprove something that doesnt exist in the first place.

 

 

I've proven that there are some trends that are visible mathematically. Namely that the Bills buck the trends of the top teams in the draft in a few areas, specifically putting more equity in offensive versus defensive players, using top equity on a TE and in the relationship between the ratio of DL spending versus WR spending.

 

The math is perfectly sound and your inability to find a single problem with it is further evidence. You might consult anyone with a backgound in statistics, who will tell you that my math is an appropriate approach to studying the trending of draft picks by position in the first two rounds of the last 7 drafts.

 

You on the other hand have proven nothing more than that you won't accept simple trending mathematics when the numbers contradict your instincts. I could feel sorry for you, but I've got better things to do with my time ;-)

 

Once again, stop whining because the mathematical truth doesn't line up with your fantasy, and if you are so insistent on knowing what the trend has been with the Houston Texans, go do the math yourself!

 

Now the circle is complete.

Theres no need for me to do any work.

 

You're a model of consistency!

[GG]

Since the 2001 draft, Pittsburgh Steelers have drafted 53% offensive players, with 32% devoted to skill offense. In that time, Bills have drafted 53% offensive players, with 33% devoted to skill offense. You may be on to something.

 

Since 2001, Steelers used only 1 first round pick on a DL, and a total of 3 in the first 2 rounds.

 

Statistics is fun.

[Ramius]

I've proven that there are some trends that are visible mathematically. Namely that the Bills buck the trends of the top teams in the draft in a few areas, specifically putting more equity in offensive versus defensive players, using top equity on a TE and in the relationship between the ratio of DL spending versus WR spending.

 

The math is perfectly sound and your inability to find a single problem with it is further evidence. You might consult anyone with a backgound in statistics, who will tell you that my math is an appropriate approach to studying the trending of draft picks by position in the first two rounds of the last 7 drafts.

 

You on the other hand have proven nothing more than that you won't accept simple trending mathematics when the numbers contradict your instincts. I could feel sorry for you, but I've got better things to do with my time ;-)

 

Once again, stop whining because the mathematical truth doesn't line up with your fantasy, and if you are so insistent on knowing what the trend has been with the Houston Texans, go do the math yourself!

 

 

 

You're a model of consistency!

 

 

Your methodology isnt sound at all, because again, you have no control group as a basis for comparison. All you've done is the equivalent of finding 6 people in the US who ate an orange and are healthy, and compare that to 1 person who ate an apple and got sick. You then conclude that eating oranges is the onyl reason that people are healthy and eating apples makes people sick.

[AKC]

Since the 2001 draft, Pittsburgh Steelers have drafted 53% offensive players, with 32% devoted to skill offense. In that time, Bills have drafted 53% offensive players, with 33% devoted to skill offense. You may be on to something.

 

Since 2001, Steelers used only 1 first round pick on a DL, and a total of 3 in the first 2 rounds.

 

Statistics is fun.

 

My study is about where players are drafted, with the position of the first player in round one having a higher "equity" value than the 5th player taken in the 2nd round. If you are unable to grasp something so fundamentally critical to understanding the strategy of the best teams, it's no wonder mathematics of drafting trends would confuse you so.

 

Your methodology isnt sound at all, because again, you have no control group as a basis for comparison. All you've done is the equivalent of finding 6 people in the US who ate an orange and are healthy, and compare that to 1 person who ate an apple and got sick. You then conclude that eating oranges is the onyl reason that people are healthy and eating apples makes people sick.

 

The methodology is sound. My study shows how the Buffalo Bills trend against recent Super Bowl teams. If you'd like to find out what the trend is for all the teams that play in the NFC West, you're free to use my methodology and perform that study. I'm pretty sure here on a Buffalo Bill's Message Boad my study of the Bill's versus the best teams in the league will be of more interest. At least to those of us who are interested in figuring out how the Bill's can improve.

[Ramius]

woohoo, look at me... i did a statistimical study, and i found out why the bills havent made the super bowl. If you look at the "top" teams from the NFL, they usually draft a limited number of players from colleges with the word "state" in their university name.

 

Pittsburgh, ne*, the giants, and the colts average 11 draftees from schools with the word "state" since 2001. Meanwhile, buffalo has drafted 16 players from schools with the word "state" in that same timespan. The problem is that buffalo drafts waaaay too many players from schools with the word "state" in their name. If we stop this alarming trend, we'll make the super bowl!

 

 

Raw data:

ne* - 12

NYG - 9

Pit - 9

Indy - 15

 

 

Buffalo - 16

[AKC]

Pittsburgh, ne*, the giants, and the colts average 11 draftees from schools with the word "state" since 2001. Meanwhile, buffalo has drafted 16 players from schools with the word "state" in that same timespan.

 

I agree it's curious- although I found it far more enlightening to discover that the Buffalo Bills use a much higher percentage of their draft equity early in the draft on offensive players versus the top football teams of today, and that the best teams spend almost 10% of their round 1 and 2 equity on TEs while we spend nada. But if you think you can learn something by compiling the team colors of all our players Pee Wee leagues, I'll be supportive of you doing the work! It's always good to see someone get off the bench and pitch in, regardless of the quality of their contribution. Welcome aboard!

[GG]

My study is about where players are drafted, with the position of the first player in round one having a higher "equity" value than the 5th player taken in the 2nd round. If you are unable to grasp something so fundamentally critical to understanding the strategy of the best teams, it's no wonder mathematics of drafting trends would confuse you so.

 

Let's play along.

 

Since 2001, the sole Steelers first round DL pick was #19. The highest Bills' pick was #26 - McCargo.

 

What does that tell us? Nothing.

 

Using your logic would mean that Texans should be the runaway leaders, since they used 4 1st round picks on DLs (as would Jets). San Diego should be nowhere near the top echelon for daring to only waste one 1st round pick on a DL, nor would Colts. Cardinals and Rams spent a lot of equity on high DL help in the draft, as have the Raiders. Packers drafted 3 DLs in the first 20 picks. Maybe you can tell me how much Vonnie & Jamal Reynolds contributed to their success.

 

What does that tell us? Nothing.

[Ramius]

Ok, i used AKC's "system" exactly as he specified, and got this for kansas city:

 

Chiefs

DL 166 0.50

DB 11 0.03

WR 42 0.13

TE 4 0.01

LB 68 0.21

OL 0.00

RB 38 0.12

QB 0.00

 

tot 329

 

The chiefs spent 50% of their "draft equity" on DL, with only 13% on WR. With such a high ratio, and a high % of DL picks, the onyl thing left to wonder is why hasnt kansas city won 3-4 super bowls since 2001?

[AKC]

Let's play along.

 

Since 2001, the sole Steelers first round DL pick was #19. The highest Bills' pick was #26 - McCargo.

 

What does that tell us? Nothing.

 

It surely wouldn't give us any trending information. Now if instead, you took the past 7 seasons and considered every pick from all the past 5 Super Bowl teams and gave it the equity value of where the pick was made in teh first two rounds, and put those cumulative trends up agains the Bill's numbers- you'd have something there! (By the way- that's exactly what I've done- you should check it out)

[GG]

It surely wouldn't give us any trending information. Now if instead, you took the past 7 seasons and considered every pick from all the past 5 Super Bowl teams and gave it the equity value of where the pick was made in teh first two rounds, and put those cumulative trends up agains the Bill's numbers- you'd have something there! (By the way- that's exactly what I've done- you should check it out)

 

Talk about introducing subjectivity into the statistics. Again, why only the last 7 drafts when analyzing past 5 SB teams? If you want to establish a trend you should look at the trailing 10 year history of drafts by both SB participants. Then, you have to figure FA additions to the roster, along with coaching stability. Once you factor all those, and some more, then you can approximate a trend (which I'm guessing will be none).

 

But you could still save some time and say that you think Bills should have picked Harris over Evans and Ngata over McCargo.

[GG]

Over the last 7 drafts & 1st round picks:

 

Bills - 8 picks - 5 offense (4 skill), 3 defense (1 DL) - 3 coaches during draft sample - 4 coaches in 10 years

 

Steelers 7 picks - 5 offense (3 skill), 2 defense (0 DL) - 2 coaches during draft sample (same system)

Giants 6 picks - 2 offense (2 skill) - plus 1 lost pick for Eli, 4 defense (2 DL) - 2 coaches during draft sample (4yrs with TC)

Bears 7 picks - 5 offense (4 skill), 2 defense (2 DL) - 2 coaches during draft sample (4yrs with Lovie)

Eagles 6 picks - 2 offense (1 skill), 4 defense (3 DL) - 1 coach during draft sample

Colts 6 picks - 4 offense (4 skill), 2 defense (1 DL)- 1 coach during draft sample (1yr W/ Mora)

* 8 picks - 4 offense (3 skill), 4 defense (3 DL) - 1 coach during draft sample

 

 

Wow, the evidence would be staggering if these were the only teams. So, what's the trend if other good & bad teams are included?

 

Cincy 7 picks - 3 offense (2 skill), 4 defense (2 DL) - 3 coaches in 10 years

SD - 8 picks - 3 offense (3 skill), 5 defense (1 DL) - 4 coaches in 10 years

Cards - 8 picks - 5 offense (3 skill), 3 defense (2 DL) - 4 coaches in 10 years

49ers - 9 picks - 5 offense (3 skill), 4 defense (1 DL) - 3 coaches in 10 years

NO - 8 picks - 5 offense (4 skill), 3 defense (3 DL) - 3 coaches in 10 years

KC - 5 picks - 2 offense (2 skill), 3 defense (2 DL) - 4 coaches in 10 years

Oak - 9 picks - 2 offense (2 skill), 7 defense (1 DL) - 5 coaches in 10 years

Det - 8 picks - 7 offense (6 skill), 1 defense (0 DL) - 7 coaches in 10 years

 

The evidence is clear of where the pattern is.

[AKC]

Talk about introducing subjectivity into the statistics. Again, why only the last 7 drafts when analyzing past 5 SB teams?

 

 

If you'd like to study trend from the 1920s to the 1940s, I'd invite you to do it. In my case I thought a contemporary look at the draft offered more meaningful information.

 

BTW, as I mentioned earlier, all this is explained in my orginal post, where the methodology is outlined and detailed. There is a clear decline in Super Bowl teams beyond 5 years, and unlike you I'm more interested in how the Bill's are trending versus the best teams in the league- not the Raiders. 7 years is the average a 1st round pick stays with their original team.

 

Ok, i used AKC's "system" exactly as he specified, and got this for kansas city:

 

Chiefs

DL 166 0.50

DB 11 0.03

WR 42 0.13

TE 4 0.01

LB 68 0.21

OL 0.00

RB 38 0.12

QB 0.00

 

tot 329

 

You might want to take my original control group (Super Bowl Teams) and post that along with your findings about the Chief's trends to one of their fan message boards-

 

It is interesting that the Chiefs- who won their Division in 03 and went back to the Playoffs after the 06 season, have that DL/WR ratio favoring the DL like the Super Bowl teams, whereas Buffalo's ratio is higher on the WR side, like Detroits. They also have the "drafting more D" trend down versus the Bills, who ignore that trend among the Super Bowl (and as you discovered here, some Playoff teams too) by investing substantially more in offensive players early.