Talent evaluation in the NFL

[John from Riverside]

I agree with this....I am actually thinking more like an improvement of about 6 games from last year.

[Nanker]

1. Not sure why you don't get it. Whaley was from the Steelers organization. Your point that Nix totally rebuilt the Bills scouting department with his guys is thus a bit of a stretch.

 

2. Well, that's all well and good but you're applauding these moves which were made in May of 2011 although Nix was hired on Dec. 31 2009. And, that was my point.

3. Yeah. Bill Polian learned everything he knows about running an NFL franchise from Buddy Nix. Gotcha.

 

4. That's a really strong argument there. Nobody said he had "no system": so much for that straw-man. And your repeated attempts to imply nobody else knows anything about scouting by trumpeting "do your homework" are as laughable as they are transparently thin, which makes you come off as a bit of a wanker.

 

1. So scouting staffs have to be completely inbred? Is that your point? It's pointless to argue with that. queue the banjo music

2. You do realize that scouts are under contract too. They're not all instantly available to fill a phantasy - no matter how delusional one is.

3. Regarding Polian - you're getting close. But it's not Nix I was pointing to. It was Steve B.

 

4. The OP implied as much with the cut and paste. If I may be so bold, I suggest that even one as highly educated in football expertise as yourself could improve their knowledge by reading the seminal works of the masters. But alas, you're doomed to your own recursive fate of loathing and hate. Let not me stand in your way. Anguish on.

[JohnC]

so by your own talent evaluation, the Bills are 4 years away from today from being a playoff contender

 

that should be just about when Spiller's career will be over

 

so how does it make any sense whatsoever to be drafting a jitterbug with a 4 year lifecycle at the beginning of a 5 year re-build project??

 

soldifying the OL to block for the RB drafted in 4 years as the last piece of the puzzle would be the smarter way to build a long term playoff contender

 

but I guess Buddy needed to see the guys actually play for a couple years to figure out they all have to be replaced

 

If you carefully read my original response you should have noted that I preferred taking an offensive lineman, in this case Buloga. Whether you agree or not with Nix's reasoning for drafting Spiller it certainly wasn't out of the bounds of being sensible.

 

The Bills are entering the second year of the rebuilding process. Not the first. So if the rebuilding process should take 4 years if done right then the next couple of years should be telling as to whether the organization's strategy is working or not.

 

soldifying the OL to block for the RB drafted in 4 years as the last piece of the puzzle would be the smarter way to build a long term playoff contender

 

As I originally noted, when Nix took over the Bills were essentially an expansion caliber team. The Levy/Jauron era was not only a failure but it set this franchise back by years. Getting a playmaker back for a team lacking playmakers is not unreasonable, even if you disagree with the approach. Picking a back with one of your high picks doesn't necessarily preclude addressing other positions with the remaining picks and through free agency and trades.

 

Buddy Nix has a simple time tested approach to rebuilding a hollow franchise. Draft well and take the best players on the board. Don't reach for need. It is the basic approach the Ravens, Steelers and Packers take. When the Packers drafted Rogers they had Farvre. Rogers sat for three or four years before he started.

 

As I stated to BillsVet the rebuilding process takes time. The Pats and the Jets are years ahead of us from a roster and organizational standpoint. Trying to short-circuit the process with expensive free agents and trades giving up picks usually doesn't work, especially for lower revenue teams.

 

One way to judge the success of the rebuilding process is to note whether Nix's last year's picks are contributing this season, in their second season. If Troup, Spiller, Carrington, Moats, Easely, Batten etc are playing and developing then the plan will work.

 

Your view of Spiller's lifespan is very restrictive. If the Bills front office handles their drafting, trades and free agent acquisitions smartly over the next couple of years Spiller will be an impactful player for us.

[JohnC]

I've been predicting the Bills seasons for the last 12 years and in that time I haven't been off by more that one game- and right now even though it's early I rate them 7-9 and if they get a little Help in free agency that could move them up to 8-8. I'm not a rah rah guy in fact I get a lot heat for being negative (I call it realistic) basically the Bills are less glaringly bad this year- my one fear is 31 year old Fred Jackson falls off the face of the earth and Spiller proves he can't carry 20 times a game- I'd consider Michael Bush as a Guy who could split carries with Spiller and Jackson.

 

Out of curiosity what did you predict for the Bills' record prior to last year?

 

I don't see the Bills winning 8 games next season. If they do I will be pleasantly surprised. I see the Bills winning in the 6-7 game range. The Bills should be competitive in more games. Last year, there were many games that were very brutal to watch. Hopefully, that won't be so much the case this year.

 

The general point I have been making is that I don't believe this year the Bills are at a point of seriously contending for the playoffs. That is not what I will be most concerned with. What I will be watching with interest is how much the roster will be upgraded with a steady infusion of newly drafted talent.

 

If last year's draftees become contributing players this year that will be a good sign that Nix knows what he is doing. If not, then we are on a merry-go-round to nowhere, again.

[Tcali]

This whole thing strikes me as too clever by half.

 

There is a human tendency to try to reduce complex multi-factorial influenced systems down to formulaic actions which be not only understood but replicated in any situation.

 

However, life does not work that way.

 

This is not to say that one should not try to understand what is happening through systemic analysis. One should.

 

However, methinks the way to achieve success is not through some formulaic application but in using this formulaic approach to "merely" establish a common language so that a large group of people can talk about what they are doing and compare notes intelligently so they can actually abandon the formula and do the right thing in a particular case.

 

Success is found not in how you follow the formula but success is found in how particular individuals at particular times abandon the formula and simply do the right thing at the right time.

 

This formulaic approach laid out in the article strikes me as on the face if it falling short in a number of specific areas.

 

1. Timing of the evaluation period. One can look at the great ones like a Gretzky perform at a very young age (pre-teen) and see that he is going to be a great athlete as an adult. However, this is the outside rarity and young men at the age of 18-21 where the lionshare of direct evaluation and at least stats can be collected is still a time of mental changes and even physical growth spurts which can change adult output significantly. Even these changes can be predicted in a large total group. A good scout like any seasoned professional either tends not to be wrong in huge ways or at least can offer a prediction and give one a reasonable level of confidence that their prediction is right.

 

However, even with these caveats there is simply significant variation which no rote system if going to reduce beyond significance.

 

2. What happens in life matters.

 

Things happen in life which unfortunately have the most significant impact on whether a players succeeds or not. No system or formula is going to predict whether a player is going to get in a car accident, slip in the shower, impregnate some gal or something that is going to be the primary impact on whether a player succeeds or not. Once again, in general no specific things is going to happen for sure to an athlete and also virtually guaranteed there will be some setback and a good scout shakes the hand of a prospect and measures how they will deal with some adversity that is bound to happen.

 

Yet, there is the Mike Williams example of a Bills draftee who had significant questions (his great numbers came as a college RT protecting the blindside of a left handed passer and we almost certainly needed him to switch to LT) but he in fact had a productive rookie year as a Bill. Yet, in his sophomore year the grandmother that raised him as a son died. He reasonably got excused in the off-season. Perhaps when Jauron shook his hand he could have judged Williams would not deal well with any likely adversity. Who knows maybe he was a jerk from word one, but the actual fact is the death of the woman who raised him coincided with a juvenile response to this tragedy and he put on a ton of weight and failed to work all off-season.

 

Ironically, he proved to be quite maliable and Mouse MacNally did a masterful job of carrot and sticking him to a point that he was awarded a game ball in his third season for an outstanding game (by both objective measures of him being beaten and a widely held subjective judgment that he did a good job against a talented opponent. However, he failed badly overall and was a bust.

 

This factor can be somewhat judged but overall reality sometimes defies systems.

 

3. The key is not simply how good a players is but how well he plays with others.

 

Again this can be judged to some extent, but overall every year is a new year with new challenges and possibilities. A good scout must be able to convey a lot more that the mere static information of the rating system included. Sports is actually a lot of fun because it lends itself to generating tons of stats, but the stats prove to be mere indicators of performance at best and sometimes flat out wrong. If demographics were determinative Doug Flutie would never lead a team to victory. If drills and measures of speed were determinative then Aaron Maybin would be a pro-bowler. If even stats were determinative Eric Moulds would have been a bust after his first two years (he also would have gracefully retired when Evans proved to be a better go to guy than him.

 

Again one can predict and not be always wrong but overall the statistical analysis leaves me cold.

 

RE: #2.There were a lot of potential OJs and Elways out there that minor twists of physical/mental fate messed up.

Sadly a minor auto accident or fall from a tree--when the injuries aren't properly tended to-can cut off an athletic career

-or make that great young athlete only good--at age 12,age 15,age 20...

[sllib olaffub]

Out of curiosity what did you predict for the Bills' record prior to last year?

 

I don't see the Bills winning 8 games next season. If they do I will be pleasantly surprised. I see the Bills winning in the 6-7 game range. The Bills should be competitive in more games. Last year, there were many games that were very brutal to watch. Hopefully, that won't be so much the case this year.

 

The general point I have been making is that I don't believe this year the Bills are at a point of seriously contending for the playoffs. That is not what I will be most concerned with. What I will be watching with interest is how much the roster will be upgraded with a steady infusion of newly drafted talent.

 

If last year's draftees become contributing players this year that will be a good sign that Nix knows what he is doing. If not, then we are on a merry-go-round to nowhere, again.

 

That is a good point, about the contribution of players recently drafted. In my opinion, one of the hardest things about watching this franchise these past 12 plus years has been the apparent constant shifting, fluctuating of game plans and strategies to try to REACT to our opponents, rather than what we need to do, which is decide on a philosophy, find the right mold of players to fill the roster, and go out there and perfect the approach, so that opponents are forced to find ways to beat you. I just couldn't stand seeing us half-committed to identity over this past decade, which has resulted in Fans not even knowing who our Bills are, as a team, nor what they are trying to do, other than lose gracefully.

So, another positive from this year will be seeing the aquisitions of this Front Office from the point of it's taking over all growing more and more productive in the same system, so we begin to see just what kind of football team the Bills are trying to be. I like the identity we're looking to create on defense, where it'll be hard to run on us, and I'm looking forward to seeing Gailey's "new" offense that will take the league by storm.

[BADOLBILZ]

If Spiller turns out to be a big play back are you still going to label him as a bad pick?

 

Yes, Spiller could turn out to be a big play back and still have been a poor use of that pick.

 

The position matters. There are running backs taken every year in the late rounds that are better athletes and more impactful college players than players at other positions taken in rounds 1 and 2. We see this every year.

 

So why aren't these players drafted early? By the strict definition of being best talent on the board they are more talented in the same manner that Spiller's talent made him higher ranked than Bulaga.

 

Some positions are easy to fill than others. Running back is one of them. Some positions provide shorter term production than can be expected of others(see running backs versus offensive tackles). The dollar value of that position should play into it as well. You shouldn't use first round picks on players who could meet expectations, yet still not be worth re-signing. See running backs and cornerbacks of recent Bills history.

 

This is a long standing weakness of the Bills personnel department. The position that is being played matters. A LOT. The Bills haven't seen it this way, and when Nix pulled the trigger on Spiller it indicated a continued detachment from reality.

 

That is how you get McGahee, Lynch and Spiller drafted with your first pick over a 6 year period, yet end up with a 30 year old undrafted free agent as your starting running back. In light of the proven folly of such an approach, your attempt to justify the Spiller pick is ridiculous.

[John from Riverside]

Yes, Spiller could turn out to be a big play back and still have been a poor use of that pick.

 

The position matters. There are running backs taken every year in the late rounds that are better athletes and more impactful college players than players at other positions taken in rounds 1 and 2. We see this every year.

 

So why aren't these players drafted early? By the strict definition of being best talent on the board they are more talented in the same manner that Spiller's talent made him higher ranked than Bulaga.

 

Some positions are easy to fill than others. Running back is one of them. Some positions provide shorter term production than can be expected of others(see running backs versus offensive tackles). The dollar value of that position should play into it as well. You shouldn't use first round picks on players who could meet expectations, yet still not be worth re-signing. See running backs and cornerbacks of recent Bills history.

 

This is a long standing weakness of the Bills personnel department. The position that is being played matters. A LOT. The Bills haven't seen it this way, and when Nix pulled the trigger on Spiller it indicated a continued detachment from reality.

 

That is how you get McGahee, Lynch and Spiller drafted with your first pick over a 6 year period, yet end up with a 30 year old undrafted free agent as your starting running back. In light of the proven folly of such an approach, your attempt to justify the Spiller pick is ridiculous.

 

 

Im sorry I cant agree with you on any points other then the draft is a crap shoot.....

 

- If CJ spiller ends up being a big play back and someone that defenses have to game plan for then he makes everyone around him better and IS worth a high 1st round pick

 

- Fred Jackson is a enigma.....for every Fred Jackson that comes in and does this there are are several backs that are out of the league drafted in those same rounds........Fred is special.

[JohnC]

Yes, Spiller could turn out to be a big play back and still have been a poor use of that pick.

 

The position matters. There are running backs taken every year in the late rounds that are better athletes and more impactful college players than players at other positions taken in rounds 1 and 2. We see this every year.

 

You can make the same claim for every position on the field. Jason Peters was our best offensive lineman by far. He was an undrafted free agent. Fitz was a low round draftee. He has outperformed Losman and Edwards, both higher drafted players. London Fletcher was either a low round draftee or undrafted free agent. He was our most productive linebacker, and is still going strong. Moats, a lower round draftee, has outperformed the highly drafted Maybin. Demetrius Bell might turn out to be a good LT. He was a low round pick. Stevie Johnson has shown glimpses that he can be an impactful player. He was a low round pick. Our best defenisve lineman last year and for the past few years was Williams. He wasn't a high round pick.

 

That is how you get McGahee, Lynch and Spiller drafted with your first pick over a 6 year period, yet end up with a 30 year old undrafted free agent as your starting running back. In light of the proven folly of such an approach, your attempt to justify the Spiller pick is ridiculous.

 

If Spiller does develop into being a big play performer on a team lacking impactful players he will be well worth the pick. The Bills had a lot of needs when Nix took over. Not all the needs were going to be met in one-two or even three years. It is a process. If Nix drafts a top ten talent in the top ten range I am not going to be too critical.

 

Nix's philosophy is to take the more highly rated player over a lower rated need. That is the same approach that the Packers, Ravens, Chargers and other successful franchises take. I have no problem with that strategy.

Edited July 4, 2011 by JohnC