Astrobot Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Besides being a longtime TSW/TBD poster, I am the Bills Analyst for DraftTek. DraftTek uses 32 team analysts to pick team needs, a Big Board of players, and VBA on MSExcel platform to run a draft or simulation (daily if necessary). Each month I'll be asking this board (and this board only, BTW) to list our positional needs. P1 is top priority, then it goes P2, P3, P4, P6, and P9, which is no need at that position. Here's what I have so far: QB=P2 RT=P2 OG=P4 TE=P2 LT=P3 all other offensive positions=P9 DE=P4 OLB34=P3 ILB=P4 FS, SS=P4 CB=P3 all other defensive positions=P9 By placing QB, TE, and RT at P2, it tells the computer to select the best player available (BPA) at one of those 3 positions. There can be only one P1 position, but you can have multiple P2's. What would you change, and why? Astro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
first_and_ten Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Besides being a longtime TSW/TBD poster, I am the Bills Analyst for DraftTek. DraftTek uses 32 team analysts to pick team needs, a Big Board of players, and VBA on MSExcel platform to run a draft or simulation (daily if necessary). Each month I'll be asking this board (and this board only, BTW) to list our positional needs. P1 is top priority, then it goes P2, P3, P4, P6, and P9, which is no need at that position. Here's what I have so far: QB=P2 RT=P2 OG=P4 TE=P2 LT=P3 all other offensive positions=P9 DE=P4 OLB34=P3 ILB=P4 FS, SS=P4 CB=P3 all other defensive positions=P9 By placing QB, TE, and RT at P2, it tells the computer to select the best player available (BPA) at one of those 3 positions. There can be only one P1 position, but you can have multiple P2's. What would you change, and why? Astro Bills = Peewww, as in stink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Astro, I've noticed that you rarely use the P1 label. How so? Just curious. Shouldn't every team have a #1 need. Or is the P2 used multiple times the de facto expression of multiple needs at virtually the highest level? Thank for the work you do throughout the year. Many Bills fans and contributors to this board follow your handiwork. Go Bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Besides being a longtime TSW/TBD poster, I am the Bills Analyst for DraftTek. DraftTek uses 32 team analysts to pick team needs, a Big Board of players, and VBA on MSExcel platform to run a draft or simulation (daily if necessary). Each month I'll be asking this board (and this board only, BTW) to list our positional needs. P1 is top priority, then it goes P2, P3, P4, P6, and P9, which is no need at that position. Here's what I have so far: QB=P2 RT=P2 OG=P4 TE=P2 LT=P3 all other offensive positions=P9 DE=P4 OLB34=P3 ILB=P4 FS, SS=P4 CB=P3 all other defensive positions=P9 By placing QB, TE, and RT at P2, it tells the computer to select the best player available (BPA) at one of those 3 positions. There can be only one P1 position, but you can have multiple P2's. What would you change, and why? Astro I would probably downgrade the TE position. Bills have a decent prospect in Chandler, but more importantly I just don't think that it's a high priority for Gailey to find one and definitely not on the same level as a franchise QB or OTs. I would also think about upgrading LT. I know some of this will depend on Bell's season, but really he looks like a journeyman type player and Gailey doesn't really seem that high on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Besides being a longtime TSW/TBD poster, I am the Bills Analyst for DraftTek. DraftTek uses 32 team analysts to pick team needs, a Big Board of players, and VBA on MSExcel platform to run a draft or simulation (daily if necessary). Each month I'll be asking this board (and this board only, BTW) to list our positional needs. P1 is top priority, then it goes P2, P3, P4, P6, and P9, which is no need at that position. Here's what I have so far: QB=P2 RT=P2 OG=P4 TE=P2 LT=P3 all other offensive positions=P9 DE=P4 OLB34=P3 ILB=P4 FS, SS=P4 CB=P3 all other defensive positions=P9 By placing QB, TE, and RT at P2, it tells the computer to select the best player available (BPA) at one of those 3 positions. There can be only one P1 position, but you can have multiple P2's. What would you change, and why? Astro I wouldn't change anything. I did notice that in your signature, you have the Bills selecting Kellen Moore in the middle rounds of the draft next year. Gailey is a proponent of the Pistol offense and Boise State with Moore primarily runs out of the Pistol. Do you think the Bills invest a higher pick, possibly a 2nd in getting their QB of the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I would probably downgrade the TE position. Bills have a decent prospect in Chandler, but more importantly I just don't think that it's a high priority for Gailey to find one and definitely not on the same level as a franchise QB or OTs. I would also think about upgrading LT. I know some of this will depend on Bell's season, but really he looks like a journeyman type player and Gailey doesn't really seem that high on him. Agreed. Bell's light is shining less brightly in Chan's eyes lately. I also believe Chandler has the tools to be better than Mark Brammer and perhaps as good as Jay Riemersma if Chan calls throws to the TE 4-5 times a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Agreed. Bell's light is shining less brightly in Chan's eyes lately. I also believe Chandler has the tools to be better than Mark Brammer and perhaps as good as Jay Riemersma if Chan calls throws to the TE 4-5 times a game. I would guess that Chan already has Bell's replacement on the roster and is just waiting for him to learn a little more before he throws him into the starting lineup. I agree with you on Chandler, the guy has the all around game at the TE position to be a solid Brammer type player, or even close to what Metzelaars gave the Bills in the mid 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I would probably downgrade the TE position. Bills have a decent prospect in Chandler, but more importantly I just don't think that it's a high priority for Gailey to find one and definitely not on the same level as a franchise QB or OTs. I would also think about upgrading LT. I know some of this will depend on Bell's season, but really he looks like a journeyman type player and Gailey doesn't really seem that high on him. This. I would swap LT & TE in priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted September 4, 2011 Author Share Posted September 4, 2011 Astro, I've noticed that you rarely use the P1 label. How so? Just curious. Shouldn't every team have a #1 need. Or is the P2 used multiple times the de facto expression of multiple needs at virtually the highest level? Thank for the work you do throughout the year. Many Bills fans and contributors to this board follow your handiwork. Go Bills! P1 would be a clear single need. The Bills so far have had multiple needs, so I use multiple P2's for those and let the computer pick the BPA. I would probably downgrade the TE position. Bills have a decent prospect in Chandler, but more importantly I just don't think that it's a high priority for Gailey to find one and definitely not on the same level as a franchise QB or OTs. I would also think about upgrading LT. I know some of this will depend on Bell's season, but really he looks like a journeyman type player and Gailey doesn't really seem that high on him. Done. Now we have: QB=P2 RT=P2 OG=P4 TE=P3 (changed from P2) LT=P2 (changed from P3) all other offensive positions=P9 DE=P4 OLB34=P3 ILB=P4 FS, SS=P4 CB=P3 all other defensive positions=P9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted September 4, 2011 Author Share Posted September 4, 2011 I wouldn't change anything. I did notice that in your signature, you have the Bills selecting Kellen Moore in the middle rounds of the draft next year. Gailey is a proponent of the Pistol offense and Boise State with Moore primarily runs out of the Pistol. Do you think the Bills invest a higher pick, possibly a 2nd in getting their QB of the future? I've watched the Georgia game twice so far. Kellen Moore's passes were 95% on the money. He threw a ball right into his receiver's hands while the WR was triple covered. We'd be okay to take Kellen Moore. At this point, I'd expect them to have picked a QB before Moore is drafted (Luck-Landy-Barkley etc.), but he'd be a very nice consolation prize. So would TE Efaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I've watched the Georgia game twice so far. Kellen Moore's passes were 95% on the money. He threw a ball right into his receiver's hands while the WR was triple covered. We'd be okay to take Kellen Moore. At this point, I'd expect them to have picked a QB before Moore is drafted (Luck-Landy-Barkley etc.), but he'd be a very nice consolation prize. So would TE Efaw. I wouldn't say Moore is a consolation prize, I think he has all the tools that Luck, Landry et. al. have with a better head on his shoulders. The only downside to Moore is that he is 6"0" which isn't ideal for a QB but what he lacks in size, he makes up for in overall knowledge and can probably read a defense better than a good amount of starting QB's in the NFL right now. If the Bills actually have a decent season and finish picking in the teens, they won't have a shot at the top 3 QB's coming out and Moore might still be there in the 2nd for them. Efaw is a player and would definitely be worth a pick in the 3rd or 4th. He would be the 2nd TE that the Bills drafted out of BSU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I love how fluid the situation is. With The Bills just signing Lee Smith, perhaps - PERHAPS - TE just got moved down a notch in priority vis-à-vis the 2012 Draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 P1 would be a clear single need. The Bills so far have had multiple needs, so I use multiple P2's for those and let the computer pick the BPA. Done. Now we have: QB=P2 RT=P2 OG=P4 TE=P3 (changed from P2) LT=P2 (changed from P3) all other offensive positions=P9 DE=P4 OLB34=P3 ILB=P4 FS, SS=P4 CB=P3 all other defensive positions=P9 This looks good. If you were going to use the P1 label on anything, I think it should be quarterback. Only because of the importance of having a franchise QB in this league. An argument could also be made that RT should be downgraded from P2 to P3. The reason I say this is because of Hairston. If the probability of him being the long-term answer at RT was 0%, RT would be P2. If it was a 100% chance of Hairston being our RT of the future, the position would be P9. To me, P3 seems like a good, intermediate position between those extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 IF I had to rank the Bills needs as of this moment 1- LT 2- RT 3- RG 4- Tight end 5- WR 6- OLB 7- QB (I like Fitz but this has to be a consideration) 8- MLB (Other then Sheppard very old at that position a smaller need but still a consideration). The offense has a lot of needs esp on the O-line and the defense still needs some LB help esp at OLB. Obviously talent will develop and other needs will pop up but that's the needs as I see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts