birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Over a large sample size and/or in the long term, that is correct. Results of any small sample can vary widely from the expected result, however. For example, it's fair to judge a Hold 'Em player who calls 2-to-1 odds on an inside straight draw after the turn. Sure, it might happen to work out in that particular case, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. It's fair to judge it as a poor move even before the river card gets flipped over. In fact, the result of that one instance is meaningless with regard to judging the strategy. Sometimes the right move doesn't work out and sometimes the wrong one does. agreed, over the long term. that's what statistical analysis is all about. I think the bills have a large enough sample size to measure the outcomes and draw conclusions about the drafting methodology that appears little changed over the last several decades.
BarleyNY Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 agreed, over the long term. that's what statistical analysis is all about. I think the bills have a large enough sample size to measure the outcomes and draw conclusions about the drafting methodology that appears little changed over the last several decades. Gotta agree there.
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I wonder if it has anything to do with Jack's much higher risk of never playing again if the knee buckles compared to Lawson's 92% probability of being better and stronger than while in college. perhaps jack should have gone even later. interesting that another desperate, perennial losing nfl franchise was the first to pull the trigger.
thebandit27 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 agreed, over the long term. that's what statistical analysis is all about. I think the bills have a large enough sample size to measure the outcomes and draw conclusions about the drafting methodology that appears little changed over the last several decades. Let me see if I can understand here... Long-term is what we're supposed to focus on, but you're outraged at the selection of Shaq because he's going to miss 4-6 games as a rookie? perhaps jack should have gone even later. interesting that another desperate, perennial losing nfl franchise was the first to pull the trigger. Again, I need some clarity here... Shaq was a bad selection because he's going to miss time immediately as a rookie, and that's important. Jack, on the other hand, is already practicing and slated to start in week 1, with no indication that he'll miss time as a rookie or at any other time in the near future, yet he should also have been picked later? Other than "the Bills are losers and desperate", what, exactly, is your drafting philosophy? And who, pray tell, would you have picked at that spot?
John from Riverside Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 most, if not all jobs involving evaluation and judgment are inexact. same in my job and likely yours. that makes the spectrum of quality levels attained in that evaluation process even more obvious and important. the outcomes almost always speak for themselves. https://youtu.be/oe30habM0ls
Wayne Cubed Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 agreed, over the long term. that's what statistical analysis is all about. I think the bills have a large enough sample size to measure the outcomes and draw conclusions about the drafting methodology that appears little changed over the last several decades. You can't be serious. 6 different GMs and 2 different owners in the last 16 years, not to mention the complete retooling of the scouting department, and you think you can "draw conclusions" as if those same 8 people all had the same concept on drafting over decades? The game has changed. The players have changed. The personnel departments have changed. Are you suggesting that the Bills draft the same way they did back in 1990s?
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 You can't be serious. 6 different GMs and 2 different owners in the last 16 years, not to mention the complete retooling of the scouting department, and you think you can "draw conclusions" as if those same 8 people all had the same concept on drafting over decades? The game has changed. The players have changed. The personnel departments have changed. Are you suggesting that the Bills draft the same way they did back in 1990s? in the sense that they generally ignore conventional wisdom, take big risks and pretend they no better than the pack, yes, i'm serious. it's been a recurring, relatively constant theme.
Wayne Cubed Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 in the sense that they generally ignore conventional wisdom, take big risks and pretend they no better than the pack, yes, i'm serious. it's been a recurring, relatively constant theme. Show me a team that follows conventional wisdom, doesn't take risks and follows a pack like mentality over decade long periods.
GG Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 in the sense that they generally ignore conventional wisdom, take big risks and pretend they no better than the pack, yes, i'm serious. it's been a recurring, relatively constant theme. That is a weak cop out answer. The biggest draft failing by this franchise was not drafting enough QBs over the last 20 years. Nothing more nothing less. Please tell me the common thought pattern in drafting McGahee knowing he'd be out for one year and not drafting Gronkowski because they were concerned about his back injury.
K-9 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 most, if not all jobs involving evaluation and judgment are inexact. same in my job and likely yours. that makes the spectrum of quality levels attained in that evaluation process even more obvious and important. the outcomes almost always speak for themselves. If the success rate on draft picks is relatively the same for every franchise since the draft began, what does that tell you? Never mind, because what it should tell you is something you can't admit, anyway. GO BILLS!!!
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 So...any actual updates, or is this still noise on bickering raging for months.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Let me see if I can understand here... Long-term is what we're supposed to focus on, but you're outraged at the selection of Shaq because he's going to miss 4-6 games as a rookie? Again, I need some clarity here... Shaq was a bad selection because he's going to miss time immediately as a rookie, and that's important. Jack, on the other hand, is already practicing and slated to start in week 1, with no indication that he'll miss time as a rookie or at any other time in the near future, yet he should also have been picked later? Other than "the Bills are losers and desperate", what, exactly, is your drafting philosophy? And who, pray tell, would you have picked at that spot? Why, the Shah of Iran of course. But sadly you're wasting your time. Bird won't answer these (excellent) questions because he's not intellectually honest.
What a Tuel Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 I can only call it like I see it. The general consensus in the scouting community was that there were still prospects on the board with grades similar to Lawson's. If I were to have taken a chance on a prospect with injury concerns at 19 it'd have been an elite prospect like Jack. I could certainly have seen the argument for him. He was universally considered a top 5 prospect. I never saw Lawson put nearly in that class. I get that Whaley is a professional GM, but thats a cop out. NFL GMs make mistakes every single year and some are easy to see when they are made. I don't buy the "Lawson was such a great value that he was worth pick 19 even though he would miss significant time his rookie season" arguement. Not at all. He was the best prospect at his position that I thought had a chance to make it to the Bills at 19. He was in a block of similarly rated prospects that wasn't likely to make it much beyond the early to mid 20s and he plays a premium position. I didn't think he'd make it to 19 due to expectation that most of the block of players he was rated in would be gone by 19. So I was very happy that he was one of the few that made it to 19 as he fills a huge need, but I didn't see him as a player that fell out of his range. Whaley's comments regarding the injury post selection and pre surgery are telling. It's clear that the team knew about the torn labrum, but hoped he could play with it in 2016. That points to the Bills talking themselves into selecting an injured player because he was a quality prospect who filled a gaping need. People - including Fortune 500 CEOs and NFL GMs - talk themselves into convenient, but risky solutions every single day. It's the only thing that makes all of the facts line up in this case. Whaley is drafting based on the players he determines he wants or needs. If you think Lawson would have lasted into the early 2nd round, Whaley still wouldn't have gotten his guy. Sure he would have X player he drafted in the first, but he obviously placed Lawson at a higher grade than the others. So you have to separate a very short term injury from the long term prospect, Whaley did that, and it was the right thing to do. If he believed Darron Lee or even Myles Jack were rated higher, or would fit better with the team, he obviously would have picked one of them, but he didn't. He picked Shaq. Now again you have to separate long-term impact from draft rankings because as you said GM's make mistakes and the rankings are hardly ever accurate. Time will tell that aspect of the pick, and Whaley will be praised or criticized depending on the outcome. Right now we are trying to criticize with incomplete information and guess work based on usually wrong rankings. Like I said earlier, if you want to rail on Whaley for picking a guy that will miss the first half of his rookie season, go for it. I respectfully disagree, and hope Whaley makes his draft choices with the long term health of the team in mind.
26CornerBlitz Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 Bills have a bold draft pickIt doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that, because of his health, Shaq Lawson was a risky draft pick. The Bills can and should take the slow approach to guard his shoulder, but will they? Boldest offseason moves (Insider) The move: Using a first-round pick on defensive lineman Shaq Lawson The Bills and every other team knew Lawson's shoulder problems could lead to season-threatening surgery. Buffalo used the 19th pick in the draft on Lawson anyway. General manager Doug Whaley said the team's medical staff signed off on the move. Whaley also said the Bills were comfortable sacrificing a few weeks of Lawson's rookie season in the interests of his longer-term health and productivity. That is how a GM should think, but how will ownership respond if Lawson's rookie season becomes a wash and the defense fails to improve its pass-rush partly as a result?
3rdand12 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 in the sense that they generally ignore conventional wisdom, take big risks and pretend they no better than the pack, yes, i'm serious. it's been a recurring, relatively constant theme. its true in the past. Does it hold true still ? Shaq weights the scales as risk. Not high risk of course due to the details of the injury but the Bills seemed to take a risk he would start, right off the bus . So this pick does move the pointer back to risk taking.
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 That is a weak cop out answer. The biggest draft failing by this franchise was not drafting enough QBs over the last 20 years. Nothing more nothing less. Please tell me the common thought pattern in drafting McGahee knowing he'd be out for one year and not drafting Gronkowski because they were concerned about his back injury. this is hilarious. the common theme is obviously that they were wrong in both cases. it's almost like they try to be wrong. that's the common denominator in bills drafts year after year. they are mostly wrong.
Big C Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 I think with Gronk the concern was that he wouldn't be able to play long term with a bad back. Of course they were wrong, and kind of ironically the guy we picked instead of him is out of the league because of a bad back.
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 I think with Gronk the concern was that he wouldn't be able to play long term with a bad back. Of course they were wrong, and kind of ironically the guy we picked instead of him is out of the league because of a bad back. Of course, if the Bills drafted Gronk, he blows out his back again in training camp. Then some fans are killing the Bills for drafting a guy with a bad back in the first place just because he was from Buffalo.
GG Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 this is hilarious. the common theme is obviously that they were wrong in both cases. it's almost like they try to be wrong. that's the common denominator in bills drafts year after year. they are mostly wrong. Nice inconsistent hindsight analysis. No **** that the moves backfired, but each was done for different reasons. If you are going to be critical of someone, it's helpful that you criticize them based on a strategy, not based on whether the move worked or not. But that's why you deservedly get raked over the coals.
bbb Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Of course, if the Bills drafted Gronk, he blows out his back again in training camp. Then some fans are killing the Bills for drafting a guy with a bad back in the first place just because he was from Buffalo. That's EXACTLY what would have happened. In fact, that's exactly what I would have thought............I really didn't want to pick him because I thought what is he hiding - he doesn't play for a whole year and then won't go back to college to play one more year to prove that he is fit.
Recommended Posts