John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 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. I have come to the conclusion that birdog is completely delusional but.....bills fandom needs all kinds so....
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 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. outcomes follow methodology and ability. the bills outcomes suck, consistently. gronk was taken by a team that appears to follow pretty conventional thinking, acts rationally ( often coldheartedly) without emotion, rarely trades up, rarely makes huge draft gambles and has drafted nearly 2x as many qb's in the last 20 years than the bills. their methodology strikes me as more in line with the philosophy of analytics and much less seat of the pants. their outcomes are the best in the league overall. I don't think it is coincidence. it's a mindset that the bills still don't appear to share.
BillsBytheBay Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 They ranked 28th in scoring offense and LAST in yards gained in the NFL last year. So much for the impact of a "franchise" running back. Spending high picks or big money on franchise backs is like sitting in a rocking chair.........it makes you feel like you are doing something but gets you nowhere. So yeah, in terms of ACTUAL produc-for-the-buc......or perhaps moreso in this case, the pick.......they look foolish.......which is nothing new for them. talking about the outcome of the selection of the player. The level of talent that team ended up with. Please stay on topic, we're not comparing the Rams as an organization and team to the bills. But the fact that the players selected, started their career injured, bt but Gurley still ended up being a very talented player. I am not going to make any argument about the value of taking a running back in the first round. My only argument is the players talent obviously met expectations.
John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 outcomes follow methodology and ability. the bills outcomes suck, consistently. gronk was taken by a team that appears to follow pretty conventional thinking, acts rationally ( often coldheartedly) without emotion, rarely trades up, rarely makes huge draft gambles and has drafted nearly 2x as many qb's in the last 20 years than the bills. their methodology strikes me as more in line with the philosophy of analytics and much less seat of the pants. their outcomes are the best in the league overall. I don't think it is coincidence. it's a mindset that the bills still don't appear to share. It is amazing how right you can be when you hit on a late round QB that is going to be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer The rest of this is just crap......the pats miss on a TON of players in the draft as well as free agency...but it doesnt matter because....well....Tom Brady carry on court jester
What a Tuel Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 outcomes follow methodology and ability. the bills outcomes suck, consistently. gronk was taken by a team that appears to follow pretty conventional thinking, acts rationally ( often coldheartedly) without emotion, rarely trades up, rarely makes huge draft gambles and has drafted nearly 2x as many qb's in the last 20 years than the bills. their methodology strikes me as more in line with the philosophy of analytics and much less seat of the pants. their outcomes are the best in the league overall. I don't think it is coincidence. it's a mindset that the bills still don't appear to share. Like selecting Dominque Easley in the 1st round in 2014 when he had just torn an ACL? Was this conventional thinking? Should the Bills follow suit? By definition the Patriots draft strategy is "by the seat of their pants". They constantly trade down and assume they will get whoever they get. They constantly pick up QB's on a gamble. The biggest reason for their success was a guy they let pass them by 5 times before deciding "since we are smarter than everyone else, now we will take this potential HOF QB for great value!". (that was sarcasm, they had no idea Brady would become who he became)
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) Like selecting Dominque Easley in the 1st round in 2014 when he had just torn an ACL? Was this conventional thinking? Should the Bills follow suit? By definition the Patriots draft strategy is "by the seat of their pants". They constantly trade down and assume they will get whoever they get. They constantly pick up QB's on a gamble. The biggest reason for their success was a guy they let pass them by 5 times before deciding "since we are smarter than everyone else, now we will take this potential HOF QB for great value!". (that was sarcasm, they had no idea Brady would become who he became) did you even read the buffalo news article on analytics? what you describe follows the core tenets almost exactly: later rounds hold more value (more picks mena abetter chance at finding a diamond) trading up is almost always a mistake (teams just aren't that good at choosing future stars especially if they are injured to start with) the power running game is statistically a losing philosophy. passing is where you win. (pick lots of qb's) the opposite of seat of the pants. this all makes statistical sense. the more qb's you draft, the better chance of finding a brady. Edited June 15, 2016 by birdog1960
John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 did you even read the buffalo news article on analytics? what you describe follows the core tenets almost exactly: later rounds hold more value (more picks mena abetter chance at finding a diamond) trading up is almost always a mistake (teams just aren't that good at choosing future stars especially if they are injured to start with) the power running game is statistically a losing philosophy. passing is where you win. (pick lots of qb's) the opposite of seat of the pants. this all makes statistical sense. the more qb's you draft, the better chance of finding a brady. Tell that to Seattle.......who runs a ton...and wins
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Tell that to Seattle.......who runs a ton...and wins statistics don't hold for every example. they hold for the majority of examples. they represent what is most likely to happen not always what does happen. it's really a pretty simple concept. not rocket surgery.
John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 statistics don't hold for every example. they hold for the majority of examples. they represent what is most likely to happen not always what does happen. it's really a pretty simple concept. not rocket surgery. well Dog...that sounds like an excuse to me
thebandit27 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 did you even read the buffalo news article on analytics? what you describe follows the core tenets almost exactly: later rounds hold more value (more picks mena abetter chance at finding a diamond) trading up is almost always a mistake (teams just aren't that good at choosing future stars especially if they are injured to start with) the power running game is statistically a losing philosophy. passing is where you win. (pick lots of qb's) the opposite of seat of the pants. this all makes statistical sense. the more qb's you draft, the better chance of finding a brady. There certainly wasn't any greater correlation between passing yards and winning than rushing yards and winning in 2015: Passing yards – playoff teams ranked 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th, 14th(Denver),15th, 18th, 20th, 24th(Carolina), 25th, 30th, 31st Passing YPA – playoff teams ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, T-6th (Carolina), T-6th, T-6th,11th, T-18th, T-21st (Denver), 28th, 29th Rushing yards – playoff teams ranked 2nd(Carolina), 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th (Denver), 20th, 30th Rushing YPC – playoff teams ranked T-3rd, T-3rd, 7th, 8th, T-9th(Carolina), T-11th (Denver), T-11th, T-11th, T-21st, T-28th, T-28th, T-28th There certainly wasn't any greater correlation between passing yards and winning than rushing yards and winning in 2015: Passing yards – playoff teams ranked 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th, 14th(Denver),15th, 18th, 20th, 24th(Carolina), 25th, 30th, 31st Passing YPA – playoff teams ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, T-6th (Carolina), T-6th, T-6th,11th, T-18th, T-21st (Denver), 28th, 29th Rushing yards – playoff teams ranked 2nd(Carolina), 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th (Denver), 20th, 30th Rushing YPC – playoff teams ranked T-3rd, T-3rd, 7th, 8th, T-9th(Carolina), T-11th (Denver), T-11th, T-11th, T-21st, T-28th, T-28th, T-28th Actually, upon reviewing the data further, only 2 of the teams that ranked in the top 10 in passing attempts made the playoffs (NE and Houston), while 5 of the 7 teams with the fewest passing attempts made the postseason (Minnesota, KC, Seattle, Carolina, Cincinnati). Perhaps there's an inverse correlation between passing and winning.
CommonCents Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) Want to play with stats? Every team in the top 10 for rush defense made the playoffs last year. Edit: the Jets didn't make it but they won 10 games. I still find that stat interesting. Edited June 15, 2016 by Commonsense
GG Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 outcomes follow methodology and ability. the bills outcomes suck, consistently. gronk was taken by a team that appears to follow pretty conventional thinking, acts rationally ( often coldheartedly) without emotion, rarely trades up, rarely makes huge draft gambles and has drafted nearly 2x as many qb's in the last 20 years than the bills. their methodology strikes me as more in line with the philosophy of analytics and much less seat of the pants. their outcomes are the best in the league overall. I don't think it is coincidence. it's a mindset that the bills still don't appear to share. But you're slamming them in hindsight for moves that were done under polar opposite methodologies. And stop using Pats* as the example, because if they didn't luck out with a random 6th round pick on a weakling QB and without help from skirting the rules, they'd be a mediocre franchise too, because their drafts have generally sucked. But maybe Pegula got some hints from Kraft in how to best scout future murderers.
thebandit27 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Want to play with stats? Every team in the top 10 for rush defense made the playoffs last year. #analytics
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 it's not surprising you all are apologists for one of the worst run professional sports organizations in recent history. you lack the ability to use reasoning and calculated analysis to make judgements devoid of favoritism or wishful thinking. but carry on. this type of support for failure must be very satisfying.
John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 it's not surprising you all are apologists for one of the worst run professional sports organizations in recent history. you lack the ability to use reasoning and calculated analysis to make judgements devoid of favoritism or wishful thinking. but carry on. this type of support for failure must be very satisfying. hold on a second......let me get my dictionary Yes....its says your full of $*$&
thebandit27 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 it's not surprising you all are apologists for one of the worst run professional sports organizations in recent history. you lack the ability to use reasoning and calculated analysis to make judgements devoid of favoritism or wishful thinking. but carry on. this type of support for failure must be very satisfying. That's right, when your assertion falls flat on its face, resort to criticizing the person as opposed to trying to back up your statement. As I always say: there's no reason to make up arguments for which to criticize the organization; they've given plenty of reasons throughout the last 15 years. It just so happens that there haven't been nearly as many in the past 2 years as in prior years, so some folks that have become so accustomed to being able to criticize every single thing they do now have to reach a bit in some instances. Your desire to criticize this particular pick is apparently so strong that you're willing to completely ignore the extreme likelihood that Shaq returns to full health this season, and instead lambaste the pick because he's going to miss 4-6 games. In the meantime, you've failed to provide a response to even the simplest question on the subject: what would you have done?
John from Riverside Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 That's right, when your assertion falls flat on its face, resort to criticizing the person as opposed to trying to back up your statement. As I always say: there's no reason to make up arguments for which to criticize the organization; they've given plenty of reasons throughout the last 15 years. It just so happens that there haven't been nearly as many in the past 2 years as in prior years, so some folks that have become so accustomed to being able to criticize every single thing they do now have to reach a bit in some instances. Your desire to criticize this particular pick is apparently so strong that you're willing to completely ignore the extreme likelihood that Shaq returns to full health this season, and instead lambaste the pick because he's going to miss 4-6 games. In the meantime, you've failed to provide a response to even the simplest question on the subject: what would you have done? This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people that crit the pick Most cannot answer I have heard Myles Jack.....which at least is worth the discussion......but while people may try to crit the team for NOT taking Myles Jack....they dont have the explanation of why every other team DID NOT also take Myles Jack Other options.....trading down....the problem is nobody wanted to offer us enough to make that a doable thing.....Dallas laments that they didnt do it but the fact is they did not WR? The crop this year was week......might have gotten into a situation like we did that weak draft with Hardy. Another D linemen might have been an option....but they did get adolphus washington in the 3rd SO WHAT DID WE NOT HAVE THAT was a. Quality and b. A need. An Edge and that is what they drafted
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) That's right, when your assertion falls flat on its face, resort to criticizing the person as opposed to trying to back up your statement. As I always say: there's no reason to make up arguments for which to criticize the organization; they've given plenty of reasons throughout the last 15 years. It just so happens that there haven't been nearly as many in the past 2 years as in prior years, so some folks that have become so accustomed to being able to criticize every single thing they do now have to reach a bit in some instances. Your desire to criticize this particular pick is apparently so strong that you're willing to completely ignore the extreme likelihood that Shaq returns to full health this season, and instead lambaste the pick because he's going to miss 4-6 games. In the meantime, you've failed to provide a response to even the simplest question on the subject: what would you have done? unlike others here, I don't pretend to be an expert analyst of either player talent or methodologies available to value such talent (which unlike generalities about statistics and cursory, superficial observations of data like your recent post) are quite involved. it seems self evident that an injury to a player that will remove him for approx. 1/6 of the average career of an nfl player seems a big gamble. I strongly suspect algorithms designed to measure just such likelihoods would have offered several better bets in statistical terms to draft in the same situation.. Edited June 15, 2016 by birdog1960
thebandit27 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 unlike others here, I don't pretend to be an expert analyst of either player talent or methodologies available to value such talent (which unlike generalities about statistics and cursory, superficial observations of data like your recent post) are quite involved. it seems self evident that an injury to a player that will remove him for approx. 1/6 of the average career of an nfl player seems a big gamble. I strongly suspect algorithms designed to measure just such likelihoods would have offered several better bets in statistical terms to draft in the same situation.. So what you're saying amounts to that you don't know who they should've picked; you only know that it shouldn't have been Shaq. This is apparently all based upon the idea that he's going to miss 4-6 games of his rookie season, and has absolutely zero to do with what level of player he will become when healthy. That is, IMO, a terrible way to run an organization. Now, if it were your opinion that Shaq simply isn't going to become a good player when healthy, well, that'd be a different discussion altogether, and at least it would make sense.
birdog1960 Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) So what you're saying amounts to that you don't know who they should've picked; you only know that it shouldn't have been Shaq. This is apparently all based upon the idea that he's going to miss 4-6 games of his rookie season, and has absolutely zero to do with what level of player he will become when healthy. That is, IMO, a terrible way to run an organization. Now, if it were your opinion that Shaq simply isn't going to become a good player when healthy, well, that'd be a different discussion altogether, and at least it would make sense. my giving you a name would be equivalent to the seat of the pants approach that I despise and seems so prevalent, at least among the lesser teams in the league. why would I guess? if I were in the same situation I would use every evidence based objective measure and tool available. i'm pretty confident you wouldn't. you seem pretty confident in your own innate ability to make the best pick. there lies the difference in our arguments. Edited June 15, 2016 by birdog1960
Recommended Posts