Dibs

This thread seems to have degenerated into a discussion about how good/bad Nix was as a GM rather than the OP of Nix having an input in the talent evaluation process. As a talent evaluation guy, I see no problem with using his expertise. In the 5 years that Nix had an input at the Bills(09-13), we drafted players to fill 12 starter slots.......including 3 probowlers(with potentially several more in the future): Wood, Byrd, Levitre, Spiller, Dareus, A.Williams, Gilmore, Glenn, Manuel, Woods, Alonso & Graham/Goodwin. It seems that the best results were when he was giving advice but not calling the shots(2009 & 2013). His GM abilities/record really shouldn't be a part of this discussion IMO.

I'd say market value. So, if what he wants equates to market value.....then yes, pay him what he wants.

We won't know till some time has passed. If we do everything we can to sign Byrd......I will be leaning heavily towards "truth". Conversely, if we don't.......and don't spend the $9m(?) saved on an equivalent player....."not truth".

Stop sucking on that lemon & put your teeth back in.

How can you be so sure of that? He obviously had a hand in the hiring of the inexperienced ILB coach Driesbach.

"Power off"

With 2 49er ILBs not going.....does that mean that Kiko will make it in?

I'm half Irish.....and I am partly dubious about your true meaning here.

I tend to think they will listen. Marrone has stated several times this season that this sort of analytics is what he wants.....though his examples to the media were extremely simplistic.

I might be corrected here......but to put things simply.... Statistics is the gathered data. Analytics is the logical analysis of that data. Add more data(statistics)......ask more complex questions......get a better analytic result. Edit: Teams have used analytic methods since inception. Running on short yardage, passing on long, analyzing game footage for team/player tendencies etc, etc, etc.......these are all products of basic analytic study/thinking. Providing extra resources to develop the existing basic analytic methods(as well as expanding the scope of where it can be used) should have been done decades ago IMO.

I've never understood this concept. Does anybody actually think that an NFL team, after a gazillion hours of intensive research, analysis and work are going to see an offhanded comment in the media made by a different team......and then in any way adjust their plans?

Using that theory, there should be an even higher premium placed upon the top 10 now. The dollar amount needed to sign them is much more appealing.....therefore the value of those picks should increase. (I wasn't sure if you meant this or the opposite so I thought I'd clarify).

Nice pickup. I did another quick number run on 2000. There was only a 0.3% increase from the 2000 season to 2013. This really does shake up the common perception somewhat IMO. Virtually no change in the past 14 years.....and minimal change(2%) in the last 24(as you said). Perception can certainly be a hoary beast sometimes.

I've come to realize that picking 1966 was not a good year to select. As the FG posts were moved in 1974 to the back of the endzone, 1966 becomes a mid section year rather than a reasonable start point. 1974 however was effected by a strike(lower scoring), so I figure the best start year should be 1975. I also listed things on a per team basis which confuses things slightly due to the additional games played today(16) compared to 1966 & 1975(14). 1975: Offensive TDs/team/game: 2.32 (16.27 pts/team/game) Successful FGs/team/game: 1.01 (3.04 pts/team/game) Total offensive points/team/game: 19.31 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 15.7% 2013: Offensive TDs/team/game: 2.37 (16.60 pts/team/game) Successful FGs/team/game: 1.69 (5.06 pts/team/game) Total offensive points/team/game: 21.65 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 23.3% In 39 years.... Total offensive scoring/game has increased by 12.1% (Wow, that's low.) Offensive TD scoring/game has increased by 2.2% (Who'd have thought that!) FG scoring/game has increased by 67.3% In 39 years, the offensive TD scoring has remained pretty much the same(2.2% increase)......while there has been an increase of 2/3 in FG scoring(which looks to be gradually increasing....though I haven't done the numbers to back that thought). One of the reasons why I believe the NFL is the most popular sport in the US is because it does not restrict itself to traditions. The game is constantly tweeked and changed......and pretty much always has been. I see no reason why scoring an increased number of FGs compared to TDs could be considered a desireable situation & I would be very surprised if the NFL didn't do something about this within the next decade.

I remeber the same conversation about 20 years ago(not on the internet of course), and there was just as much debate back then as there is now. I think a top 10 list would be more appropriate for today.

Lordy, I still use a few of the words on that list, or of a similar ilk. I never realized that "whilst" wasn't used anymore. I still use it regularly.

I had a little bit of time so I decided to look at a few quick numbers. I thought I'd compare the 1966 season(1st SB year) to the 2013 season(current). (note: For ease of calculation I counted TDs as a flat 7 points, ignoring missed PAT & 2pt attempts). 1966: Offensive TDs/team: 33 (231.3 pts/team) Successful FGs/team: 16.9 (50.8 pts/team) Total offensive points/game: 282.1 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 18% 2013: Offensive TDs/team: 37.9 (265.6 pts/team) Successful FGs/team: 27 (80.9 pts/team) Total offensive points/game: 346.5 FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 23.3% In 48 years.... Total offensive scoring has increased by 23% (surprising low to me) Offensive TD scoring has increased by 15% (even more surprising low) FG scoring has increased by 59% Though the percentage of FGs scored has increased dramatically in those 48 years, the percentage of offensive scoring for FGs compared to the overall offensive scoring has only increased by 5.3% over that time. Another way of looking at the numbers would be.....FG scoring has seen a 29.4% increase in relation to the total scoring while TD scoring has seen a 6.5% decrease. These numbers have somewhat changed my view on the situation. Though it is clear that FG scoring has increased at a very high rate, the effect of the increase on the overall scoring is only a small amount(5.3%) more than 48 years ago. I tend to think that the situation should still be addressed at some point.....but I no longer think that the increase in FG scoring has a significant effect on the game(when compared to how it was originally intended).

Assuming I have all the information correct...... Driesbach was a Pettine appoinment. He had no NFL experience and happened to be the person who gave Pettine his first collegiate job. The other LB coach(O'Neil, 4 yrs NFL success with Pettine) also had ties to Driesbach.....and likely had some influence in the deciscion making for the appointment. Occam's razor.....Pettine(& O'Neil) thought their old friend had what it takes to make it in the NFL.....but after a year it became clear that he couldn't step up to the next level. I think people are really stretching to find some sort of blame for Marrone in this situation. He trusted his DC's judgement.....things didn't work out as desired......so the error was rectified.

Actually, I believe that there likely would be a relation(but not in the manner originally intended earlier in the thread). Easier passing likely means more yardage.....more yardage likely means longer average drives.....which would mean more drives finishing within FG range. Yet another reason why the modern game has a lower importance on TDs compared to FGs than in times past.

Adrian Peterson got ROTY in 2007.

I totally agree.......and as it happens I spend a fair bit of time providing simplistic data analysis on this site to counteract the oft posted "popular beliefs" or "gut feel" opinions that many others espouse. My point was that there are many areas relating to football(or more accurately humans) that no amount of analytics can determine. Some may disagree with this.....I just hope that the Bills analytics department aren't amongst those. Don't get me wrong though......I think analytic questions should be asked in all areas & data subsequently collected. I just don't think it can be useful in all of the ways that some people seem to think it can.

I tend to think that the level of intelligence in NFL players would mirror the intelligence of people in the every day world. Odd that you obviously don't see it the same way. I'm not going to comment on the intelligence of such thinking......people in glass houses and all... (I think I might have just insulted a majority of posters here...oops.)

How about....

I would be very interested in seeing the same stats from 10, 20 & even 30(or more) years ago. I'd be fairly certain that the numbers would be better in today's league.....if not greatly better. Assuming this to be the case, I for one would be quite content to reduce the chances for teams to be able to score points from FGs.....thus elevating the importance of scoring TDs to somewhere closer to days of yore.