Chance Warmack - OG - Alabama

[Orton's Arm]

Before we go off on a tangent, I'll just cut to the chase. There are those that know the game, it's players, and the paramaters in which they play and those that don't. The NY Times' regression analysis was conducted in a vacuum, completely devoid of other pertinent facts relative to the outcome of any particular game and in what order those pertinent facts occurred and to what variance each affected the other.

 

Which is more important, a 90 yard run for the winning score or a 90 yard pass? Which is more impactful, a fumbled running attempt or an intercepted pass? Exactly.

 

Only a stat geek would take umbrage with Marv Levy's coaching speak about how each phase of the game contributes 1/3 to a win.

 

Good luck in your never ending quest to quantify and explain all of the known universe in a statistical analysis. I'll stick to what I know in the meantime. But if you and Nate Silver ever own a team, you may want to staff it with people that know personnel and what makes them tick before trying to coach and manage the team yourselves.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> There are those that know the game, it's [sic] players, and the paramaters [sic] in which they play and those that don't.

 

In other words, neither you personally, nor front office personnel generally, were in any position to learn from the regression analysis; because you and they already knew everything worth knowing.

[K-9]

> There are those that know the game, it's [sic] players, and the paramaters [sic] in which they play and those that don't.

 

In other words, neither you personally, nor front office personnel generally, were in any position to learn from the regression analysis; because you and they already knew everything worth knowing.

 

We're always in a position to learn and nobody I know knows everything. It's just that the NY Times analysis, while an interesting study, didn't serve to educate anyone over and above what is generally well understood already. And has been for a long time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

We're always in a position to learn and nobody I know knows everything. It's just that the NY Times analysis, while an interesting study, didn't serve to educate anyone over and above what is generally well understood already. And has been for a long time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

In any business endeavor, quantifying something almost always leads to more knowledge and insight than mere instinct, guesswork, or gut feeling. In large manufacturing operations, there are typically quantitatively-based quality control measures. Other quantitative measures are used to track the flow of products through the factory, to determine where the bottlenecks are. Quantitative tools have also been used to increase agricultural yields, increase engine performance, and perform a host of other tasks.

 

You, for whatever reason, seem hostile to the notion of using quantitative techniques in a football setting. I'm reminded of the movie Moneyball, in which the man who'd created a way of quantitatively measuring baseball players' impact on winning was shunned by older front office personnel. They were people just like you: they thought they already "knew baseball" and didn't need any sort of statistical analysis.

 

If you feel that you, personally, have nothing to learn from the New York Times' regression analysis, or from any other statistical analysis, fine. Don't learn anything. But do not expect me to join in your evident disdain for quantitative analysis.

 

There are at least two possible approaches to any discussion:

1) To explain why you believe what you believe. The goal here is partially to persuade. But it's also to enlighten: to cause people to more deeply understand the subject, and your own thought process about it.

2) To demand that your audience adopt your opinions because you tell them to. No explanation is given, because the goal isn't to inform or enlighten. The goal is to increase one's own social status by dictating to others.

 

You consistently choose this second persuasive technique. Do not use that technique with me in the future, ever. If (as I expect) you respond to this message with some variation of that second technique, I will not respond. If you use the first technique, I will.

 

In the unlikely event that you decide to use the first technique, please answer a simple question. You claim that the New York Times analysis broke no new ground. If that's true, then that would imply that even before the Times performed the analysis, most front office people were already vaguely aware that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. What evidence can you give us that such a consensus existed?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[Simon]

In ........

.....substitute for such evidence.

 

#1 - Baseball lends itself to mathematical analysis in a way that football never will

 

#2 - If we're having a competition between algebra and one of the most knowledgeable posters in the history of this forum, I know which dog I'm picking every time.

[Orton's Arm]

#1 - Baseball lends itself to mathematical analysis in a way that football never will

 

#2 - If we're having a competition between algebra and one of the most knowledgeable posters in the history of this forum, I know which dog I'm picking every time.

 

> #1 - Baseball lends itself to mathematical analysis in a way that football never will

 

Never say never! I'll grant that a Moneyball-like analysis of football would be much more difficult than for baseball. A football-like analysis would involve watching a ton of film, to gather far more information than is currently being gathered. For example, you could watch an entire game, timing how long it took for the DE to get past the LT on each and every play. Then you could rinse and repeat for the other offensive line positions. This kind of technique could potentially get you much more raw data than we currently have. Once the raw data have been obtained, it would then be a question of building a sound mathematical model.

 

A project like that would be incredibly labor-intensive, and therefore expensive. In the meantime, we should make good use of the somewhat simpler (but still effective) statistical tools we do have.

 

> #2 - If we're having a competition between algebra and one of the most knowledgeable posters in the history of this forum, I know which dog I'm picking every time.

 

It's not his level of knowledge which concerns me. It's his arrogant attitude. Nothing about his posting style makes me want to get to know him more, or interact with him any more frequently than absolutely necessary.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[Dibs]

........

 

So no, the Times didn't inform me of anything that hasn't been obvious for a long time. And again, it didn't educate anyone in the way of the personnel that play the game or the frameworks in which they play it.

......

 

Though that may be true(most likely), it does not detract from the importance of conducting analytical studies. Having a majority(or even a vast majority) believing in a particular opinion/theory does not add any weight to the validity of the opinion/theory......and in some cases it may be somewhat(or even entirely) incorrect.

 

Having an analytical study which proves the "common wisdom", is not a waste of time. It not only reaffirms what is "known", but enables one to be able to logically counter the minority who might voice a contrary opinion.

[K-9]

 

Though that may be true(most likely), it does not detract from the importance of conducting analytical studies. Having a majority(or even a vast majority) believing in a particular opinion/theory does not add any weight to the validity of the opinion/theory......and in some cases it may be somewhat(or even entirely) incorrect.

 

Having an analytical study which proves the "common wisdom", is not a waste of time. It not only reaffirms what is "known", but enables one to be able to logically counter the minority who might voice a contrary opinion.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. And I'm not "anti" statistics. But the NY Times didn't tell us anything new. The importance of the passing game and all that entails, from getting a great QB to protecting him to finding D players to plant the opposing QB on his ass, has been the paradigm since the hash marks were moved in to open up the passing game some 40+ years ago.

 

The Times' study did nothing to educate anyone on the intricacies of the game in terms of personnel, schemes, and in-game situations, etc.

 

Knowing how important it is to have and to defend a passing game IN NO WAY diminishes the idea that you STILL have to run and stop the run in this game. To dismiss the simple idea of making teams one-dimensional just shows a lack of understanding of the basic intricacies of the game. The WORST QB in the league can kick your ass all day long if you can't stop his running game. The BEST passers in the game will make you pay MORE when you can't.

 

Like I said, it was an interesting read. But not too informative otherwise in the grand scheme of things. At least from my perspective. I say that becase I wouldn't want anyone to think I DEMAND you accept my point of view.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

In any business endeavor, quantifying something almost always leads to more knowledge and insight than mere instinct, guesswork, or gut feeling. In large manufacturing operations, there are typically quantitatively-based quality control measures. Other quantitative measures are used to track the flow of products through the factory, to determine where the bottlenecks are. Quantitative tools have also been used to increase agricultural yields, increase engine performance, and perform a host of other tasks.

 

You, for whatever reason, seem hostile to the notion of using quantitative techniques in a football setting. I'm reminded of the movie Moneyball, in which the man who'd created a way of quantitatively measuring baseball players' impact on winning was shunned by older front office personnel. They were people just like you: they thought they already "knew baseball" and didn't need any sort of statistical analysis.

 

If you feel that you, personally, have nothing to learn from the New York Times' regression analysis, or from any other statistical analysis, fine. Don't learn anything. But do not expect me to join in your evident disdain for quantitative analysis.

 

There are at least two possible approaches to any discussion:

1) To explain why you believe what you believe. The goal here is partially to persuade. But it's also to enlighten: to cause people to more deeply understand the subject, and your own thought process about it.

2) To demand that your audience adopt your opinions because you tell them to. No explanation is given, because the goal isn't to inform or enlighten. The goal is to increase one's own social status by dictating to others.

 

You consistently choose this second persuasive technique. Do not use that technique with me in the future, ever. If (as I expect) you respond to this message with some variation of that second technique, I will not respond. If you use the first technique, I will.

 

In the unlikely event that you decide to use the first technique, please answer a simple question. You claim that the New York Times analysis broke no new ground. If that's true, then that would imply that even before the Times performed the analysis, most front office people were already vaguely aware that the passing game is four times as important as the running game. What evidence can you give us that such a consensus existed?

 

Let it go. We are talking way past each other here. I'm happy that you derived knowledge from the regression analysis.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Section242]

#1 - Baseball lends itself to mathematical analysis in a way that football never will

 

#2 - If we're having a competition between algebra and one of the most knowledgeable posters in the history of this forum, I know which dog I'm picking every time.

 

Statistical analysis has found it's way into hockey and the nba. Coaches control more in football than most sports IMO. Mike Schopp's goal seems to be for teams to not punt on 4th down. Statistical analysis says teams should go for it pretty much everytime. Their has to be a happy medium.

 

Baseball lends itself to statistical analysis more in scouting than other sports. Although Aaron Schatz website had Russell Wilson as the highest rated QB they've ever rated coming into the NFL.

[Orton's Arm]

Though that may be true(most likely), it does not detract from the importance of conducting analytical studies. Having a majority(or even a vast majority) believing in a particular opinion/theory does not add any weight to the validity of the opinion/theory......and in some cases it may be somewhat(or even entirely) incorrect.

 

Having an analytical study which proves the "common wisdom", is not a waste of time. It not only reaffirms what is "known", but enables one to be able to logically counter the minority who might voice a contrary opinion.

 

An excellent point.

 

When the New York Times conducted their regression analysis, their goal was to use as few variables as possible to explain as much of the observed variation as possible. The dependent variable in this case was a team's number of wins over the course of the season. They found that by using just six variables, they were able to explain 80% of the variation. The six variables they used were yards per pass attempt, yards per rush, INT percentage, and the defensive analogs thereof. Yards per pass attempt was three times as important as yards per rush; while INT percentage was as important as yards per rush. By that I mean that a 1 SD improvement in yards per pass attempt would result in three times as many additional wins as would a 1 SD improvement in yards per rushing attempt.

 

Another publication conducted a study in which Marshawn Lynch and Fred Jackson were the main subjects. They looked at plays when each OL won his individual battle; and compared them against plays when just one OL lost his battle. The difference was dramatic: an OL losing his battle would cost the RB about half the yards he would otherwise have gained.

 

Assume there are five battles being fought along the OL. If each OL has a 90% chance of winning his battle, then on 59% of running plays, all five OL will win their battles. But if each OL has an 80% chance of winning his battle, then all five OL will win their battles on only 33% of running plays. This is a rather long way of saying that, unless you have Barry Sanders in the backfield, good run blocking is probably much more important to the success of your running game than a good RB. Bill from NYC made a similar point; and (unlike me) managed to do so without making people's eyes glaze over.

 

It is reasonable to conclude that a QB is even more important to the passing game than a RB is to the running game. Given that the passing game is four times as important as the running game, a GM who was aware of the New York Times' analysis would place at least four times as much importance on a good QB as on a good RB. Looking at past drafts, it does seem as though QB is more strongly emphasized in the top-10 than RB. But the difference in emphasis between the two positions is not nearly as strong as one would expect, had GMs been aware of the New York Times' conclusions.

 

There are teams--such as the Bills--which have generally emphasized RB much more strongly than QB. Over the last 40 years, fully 25% of our first picks of the draft have been used on RBs. Less than 4% of our first picks of the draft have been used on QBs. Nothing about that track record remotely suggests the Bills are aware that the passing game is four times as important as the running game.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[smapdi]

I cannot get behind the Bills using the 8th overall pick on a OG. This team has much bigger fish to fry then taking a guard in the top 10. QB, WR, LB, CB, Pass Rushers, and SS are in much dire straights then who our LG will be.

 

Hell, just look at our WR's: Stevie Johnson and TJ Graham. That's it. We also don't have a QB to get our WR's the ball. Like it or not, the NFL is a passing league now-a-days. You will not make it very far without an above average passing attack.

[26TrapDraw]

Kolb is now official. We are not gonna take a qb too early because they got Kolb so now shore up the spot vacant by Levitre leaving with Chance Warmack. I know its not gonna be popular but thinking of Kolb's strengths keeping him off his ass will be key. Combine it with our running game behind this road grater and you have a chance of an efficient offense. I know there's head scratching . Why didn't we keep levitre now we gotta draft his replacement wah wah wah I get that. But you gotta think about making our strengths (running game, keeping Kolb upright so he can execute the passing game) even stronger

LV

[Maddog69]

I would not be happy with a OG in the top 10 with the other needs we have.

They need to get an impact player. I want Geno Smith or a WR (Patterson/Austin) or a LB (I love Mingo)

[KOKBILLS]

No...

[atlbillsfan1975]

The current regime of Nix, Whaley, and Brandon, had a similar situation last draft. Lost the LT in FA and they took a LT in the second round.

Personally i do not think there is going to be much trading back in the first from teams in the top 15. I do however see teams like the Bills trading back late into the first round to get a guy they like and do not want to wait on. But even then i doubt it will be a OL they target but maybe a QB...

[shibuya]

it won't be

[Brainiac21]

but Bell was only so-so... and LT is > OG.

 

i still think it would look terrible to draft a G, and they must not think it's worth it. it would be like keeping Levitre, then trading him and the #8 pick for a slightly better G... which makes no sense with the holes we have. just can;t believe we'd use the #8 pick to just replace what we had and didn't value enough to sign. he was more expensive sure, but... that money difference is not worth the 8th pick. no way. can't see it.

[Malazan]

thinkin it's gonna be a grilled cheese day.

[It's in My Blood]

Seahawks had T. Jackson, traded for Flynn, then drafted Russell. We should follow a similar model.

 

It all begins and ends with the quarterback.

[Dragonborn10]

I would be happy with Warmack. The WR's are too raw. Wouldn't be disappointed with a WR or LB though. Just not a QB. None of them are worth the #8 pick. Take you shot at Nassib falling ot the second round or one of the Tyler's in the third. Kolb is fine for a year or maybe more in a West Coast system. This draft and FA to follow needs to produce two starting LB's, a guard, a TE, a WR, and a back-up CB. Kolb gives them the flexibility to take BPA in all the rounds. If they can trade back everyon here would love it but it will be hard to do.

[yungmack]

This would rank among the more idiotic chices in Bills history if it happened. A more likely line pick would be one of the top tackles.