Dibs

Though this is not an uncommon statement.....can you explain what you mean by this?

I covered this in the previous post. It all comes down to averages. As I said previously...... "For example, the DB positions. Overall, the SB Teams selected them in the 1st round at the same rate as the entire league. This means that their need for improvement at those positions(on average) was the same as every other team. The numbers showed that when the SB teams had a top 10/15 pick, they chose DB at a much lesser rate than the norm. We know that they needed a DB at the same average rate(as just mentioned).....but would rarely use their top picks on them." As it turned out, all three groups were pretty much in line with each other in terms of positional percentages when looked at over the entire 1st round. (The only striking number was the Average Teams selecting far more LBs over the SB & Dumbass Teams). This suggests that "on average" they had the same basic team needs as every other team.....that even though some were set at DE(for example), there was a relatively equal amount of natural attrition and need for improvement that they(as a group) selected a similar amount(percentage wise) to the league norm in the 1st round. Edit: All that being said.....it is obvious that the point you make will likely effect the numbers regarding QBs. One would expect the SB Teams' QB numbers to be lower.....and they were a bit lower. The DE numbers were also slightly lower.....which means that there might well have been a higher percent of SB Teams who had become "set" at the DE position prior to 6 seasons before their SB appearance. On this however I am more doubtful.

No.....what I am saying is that the purpose of this exercise was to try and see if there were any patterns to positional drafting for teams leading up to their SB appearance.....as well as to Dumbass teams. It wasn't to analyze the hit/miss of those picks......I automatically assumed that the SB teams would "hit" more on their players as they managed to build SB calibre teams. The hit/miss rate becomes irrelevant when studying multiple teams. For example, the DB positions. Overall, the SB Teams selected them in the 1st round at the same rate as the entire league. This means that their need for improvement at those positions(on average) was the same as every other team. The numbers showed that when the SB teams had a top 10/15 pick, they chose DB at a much lesser rate than the norm. We know that they needed a DB at the same average rate(as just mentioned).....but would rarely use their top picks on them. The hit/miss aspect is not relevant to how much draft stock a team is willing to use to try to achieve their "hit" at a given position. I covered this in the first part of the study. As it turned out.....and I was expecting exactly the same as you do.....the opposite occurred. It was in fact the older SB teams that placed a higher emphasis on DB & DE....while the modern SB Teams focused more on DT.(See the first attachment for this info). You'd think that.....and it is true that the Dumbass Teams had a high premium on Top 10/15 DT......but that is where the logic ends. The Dumbass teams were well below average in drafting Top 10/15 LB & RB.....and were well above the SB Teams in drafting Top 10/15 DB. The most glaring thing with the Dumbass Teams was the lack of QB selection. I was expecting them to be clear leaders in the number of 1st round(particularly Top 10) QB selections......but they were constantly below the Average group.

I agree. One of the reasons I paid little attention to Top 5 selections was due to the lack of availability of position there when drafting. The study was related however to position chosen by the various groupings. It matters not(to this study) that the SB teams "hit" or "missed" on their draft picks.....more what, and where, their draft picks occurred. Showing that the SB Teams selected DB at half the rate of other teams inside the top 15....but caught up in overall DB numbers throughout the draft suggests that they place a lower importance on DB star potential than the norm......regardless of "hit" or "miss". The numbers showing the Dumbass Teams selecting LB inside the top 10/15 to be under half the norm also is a glaring factoid. We know that these Dumbass teams didn't have great or even good LBs(generally).....so irrelevant to hit/miss, they simply didn't place as much emphasis on them as the SB & Average teams. Nah.....I was actually expecting no correlations(which would have been a result in itself). Had that occurred, I could confidently ignore any poster proclaiming their own personal opinion of what good/bad teams do to win/lose. As it happens, the Top 10/15 clearly showed some patterns.....and further patterns when comparing those to the Top 20/32 results. DB & LB in particular.....see above.

Not so.... OL related stats: 10th Sacks allowed 11th Sack percent allowed 6th Rushing yards 4th Rushing Y/A Defensive stats: 18th in Sacks 13th in Sack percent 15th Defensive QBR 10th Defensive passing Y/A

I'm not too sure if his contract amount has been stated yet.... From what I can see, 1 year, $825,000 There will likely be a Veteran cap discount of close to $400,000 on that as well. End result....very cheap....can't hurt.

No....I love the Bills....I'd want somebody with far greater football knowledge than myself running them. I do indeed.

I'd be happy to work for them for free......as long as I could work from home. Honestly....it would be my dream job.

I actually decided upon the criteria to use(6 drafts prior to a SB appearance).....and the numbers fell where they did. It wasn't too uncommon for a team that makes the SB to have a Top 5/10 pick. Examples of Top 5 selections for SB teams would be Eli Manning(Giants 2007), Levi Brown(Cardinals 2008) etc. One interesting observation I had was that it appeared that it was more common for the SB Teams to not have a 1st round pick than the other teams(though not a common occurrence). I assume that this is a result of them either trading it away to move up in the 1st round....or to trade for a FA......though I didn't keep any records of how often this happened. The actual percents are as follows. SB Teams: 103 picks: Top 5 = 7(6.8%) Top 10 = 21(20.4%) Top 15 = 39(37.9%) Average Teams: 222 picks: Top 5 = 40(18%) Top 10 = 69(31.1%) Top 15 = 105(47.3%) Dumbass Teams: 91 picks: Top 5 = 18(19.8%) Top 10 = 40(44%) Top 15 = 51(56%) As you can see, the percentages follow how one would assume them to be.....SB Teams had less across the board than the Average Teams.....who had less across the board than the Dumbass Teams. The percentages for the SB teams inside Top 5/10 were greatly lower than the other teams.....which again is exactly what one would expect.

I always have a problem unless they have a modern automatic tap. How do you turn the tap off without putting not only your own germs.....but everyone else's germs, back on your hands.

What if the toilet is not in the bathroom.....but is in a small room all to itself? What do you personally call that? Common names being:- The toilet. The WC. The small or little room. Edit....and if somebody asked me where my "bathroom" was I would say...."Are you after the toilet?".....and point them in the right direction, rather than send them to the room in my house which has a shower, bath & basin but no actual toilet.

Ironically, if somebody were to say that to you & you then explain your pet peeve in this regard.....they likely would apologize by saying "My bad.". You Sir deserve a chicken dinner for that one.

It’s that time of year again, the time of year where people look to the draft and decide to spout their thoughts…..usually unfounded and often ill-conceived…..on how the good teams successfully draft in relation to player positions. Good teams…..”don’t draft OTs in the Top 10”…..”put a premium on QB, WR & DE”…..”don’t waste their top picks on DBs”. These are just some of the many thoughts that dogmatically land in various threads leading up to the draft. I believe that any rule in this regard is irrelevant, as the importance of any particular position drafted(QB excluded) is going to pale in comparison to the importance of having a top QB leading your team. With that in mind, I decided to embark on an exercise in futility. Star QBs win SBs….but there still needs to be an overall decent team with them to do so….not as good as was needed pre-2000(as determined in this study: http://forums.twobil...l/#entry2722647), but still, a QB cannot win it on his own. Furthermore I thought, half of the losing SB teams don’t have a Star QB…..maybe a study in this regards is worth doing. Heh….who am I kidding….I just love crunching the numbers. I decided to look at each SB winning & losing teams and the drafts leading up to their SB appearances. I chose to look at 6 drafts worth of players for each of these teams…..breaking them down into player positions and 1st round draft number selected categories(1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-32). I also chose to break this up into two charts…..2012-2000 & pre-2000. I did this to see if there was any pattern changes…..and chose the year 2000 due to my previous study showing that as being a league changing time. I went back to the 1991 SB teams(Skins/Bills) as this provided similar numbers to 2012-2000. I also did a percentage breakdown for each area. Unfortunately I still can’t paste tables into the post so you’ll have to click on the attached PDF files. The Data: What do SB teams draft 1.pdf Results: The “Top 5” area can be ignored as there is not enough data to ascertain patterns, as well as the fact that there are usually 2-5 elite players in each draft which severely limits positional selection….or to put another way, enforces the BPA approach. The overall 1st round numbers came out to be very similar(considering the sample sizes) with the exception of TE and OG/C. There were 3 times more 1st round TEs and OG/C drafted by SB teams in 2000-2012 than previous. To me, the TE increase was not surprising as the position has been revolutionized over the past decade. The OG/C position is a bit surprising…..see next point. I would have expected the older SB teams to have placed a higher priority on the running game(both O & D) than the 2000-2012 teams. The results however suggested the opposite. The older teams used far higher draft stock on DB(top 10/15) and DE(top 10) than the modern era teams which suggests a higher focus in stopping the passing game……and the modern teams had a much higher DT(top 10) selection suggesting a higher focus on run D. Top 10 RBs were also relatively higher in the modern teams as well as the aforementioned OG/C being higher…..which suggests a higher modern day emphasis on the importance of the running game. The only other area of note was the much higher top 10 selections of WR in the modern teams. Having decided that the 2012-2000 years provide a decent amount of data, I decided to progress further. I collated all the 1st round draft picks for what I will call the Dumbass teams. My list of Dumbass teams are those that have only made the playoffs 4 times or less since 2000…..and that have not made a Conference Final(this excluded Raiders & Cardinals). I also chose to exclude the Browns & Texans as in relation to the years covered, they are hindered by being expansion teams. My Dumbass teams are Bills(0), Lions(1), Jaguars(2), Chiefs(2), Dolphins(3), Cowboys(4) & Bengals(4). I then collated data for all teams and subtracted my SB and Dumbass teams from the results. This then gives an average teams drafting result as it does not have the successful team building SB teams….nor the Dumbass teams to influence the numbers. This group I will be referring to as the “Average” teams. Comparing the three data groups was extremely interesting. Top 32 & Top 20 Data: What do SB teams draft 2.pdf 2000-2012 drafts. Results: I was astounded to see that in both the Top 32 & Top 20 ranges, the Dumbass Teams were closer to the SB Teams than the Average Teams, particularly the LB & OG/C positions. Overall, the SB & Dumbass Teams were extremely close in their drafting patterns across the board. I really don’t know what to make of this. I was also surprised to see that the Dumbass teams were below the Average Teams when it came to drafting 1st round QBs…..though that might help explain why even though they generally drafted in a similar manner to the SB Teams, they have ended up with Dumbass results. The SB teams seemed to value the TE position in the 21-32 range far more than other teams. Top 15 & Top 10 Data: What do SB teams draft 3.pdf 2000-2012 drafts. Results: The Top 10 & Top 15 areas are where I think certain patterns become apparent, the biggest one being DB selecting. Though all 3 groups maintained a similar percentage of DB drafting throughout the Top 32 & Top 20 areas, the SB Teams selected them far less inside the Top 15 & Top 10 areas. Another area that stands out is LB selection for the Dumbass Teams, particularly in the Top 15 area. SB & Average teams selected LBs with high draft picks at a much greater rate than the Dumbasses. Interestingly though, the SB teams seemed to place very little emphasis on LB after the 15th pick(see Top 32/20 above). WR was interesting as the SB Teams and the Dumbass Teams were well ahead of the Average Teams in their selections, particularly the SB Teams in the Top 10. The logic I see on this is that the SB Teams have had success finding a Star QB and likely chose to obtain a good WR to maximise the QBs abilities. The Dumbass Teams…..being the dumbasses that they are….don’t have Star QBs. Their passing game likely suffers as a result of this, and bad logic follows that obtaining a good WR will improve said bad passing game….thus the large number of Top 10/15 WRs selected by the Dumbasses. As was common through every area studied, the Average Teams placed more emphasis on DE than DT whereas the SB & Dumbasses were the opposite. This was most highlighted in the Top 10 range with the SB Teams using 19% on DT while the Average Teams only used 7.2% Though the SB Teams were markedly lower at selecting OT inside the Top 10, they had the highest OT percentage inside the Top 15…..leaving the result inconclusive on that position IMO. Top 5 Data: 2000-2012 drafts. As mentioned earlier, the Top 5 area is not usable IMO for useful analysis….which is probably just as well as I am unable to download the file due to total size considerations. The only areas of interest were: The Dumbass Teams only used their Top 5 picks 3 times(16.7%) on QBs while the Average teams did so 12 times(30%). The Dumbass Teams used an extraordinary number of picks at WR….5(27.8%). By comparison, the SB Teams who had a whopping 6 WRs taken inside the Top 10(28.6%), only chose one of those in the Top 5. I hope some of you find this as interesting as I have done.

I'm finding that a little ambiguous. Do you mean that the room where the toilet is in, is called a toilet......or the room with the bath in it(and no toilet), is called a toilet?

"draw"......I'm Australian.

UM he wrote that in early January dude !!

"scollops" is the standard pronunciation where I live.....but you're right anyway.....I think I'm so cool.

I guess the #11 pick is entirely different from the #10.

Dibs doesn't know what you are talking about. (Extra subtle joke for those comic book fans who know my avatar.) People who use the expression "end all be all". The correct expression is "be-all and end-all"......taken from Shakespeare's MacBeth.... <If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly: if the assassination could trammel up the consequence, and catch, with his surcease, success; that but this blow might be the be-all and end-all here.>

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Fitz handle everything to do with things off the field extremely well? Add to that the fact he is extremely intelligent and likely knows exactly what to do on the field....but lacks the physicality and game smarts to put that knowledge into practice on the field......and you end up with a person who is perhaps extremely well suited to being a mentor to a young person entering into the harsh make or break world that is the NFL QB.

You know, that's so crazy it just might work!!

At the risk of being unpopular in this thread......I thought Django was not a great film.

Not that this effects your point.....but Craig Urbik was a 3rd round pick for the Steelers in 2009.

I think this is where the young whippersnappers say "pwned".

I take this as a random reminder to myself that I have still not seen the movie.....and have been meaning to watch it for over a decade. Downloading now.