FireChan Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Over the last 5 years. Bills with 2 QB's taken over 5 years in contrast to 7 DB's and 6 WR's. And no idea why we suck. Edited February 7, 2017 by FireChan
snafu Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 ??? who are you comparing them to ??? New England Picked 2 QB, 6 WR and 9 DB's. Cleveland picked 3 QB 6 WR and 10 DB's.
MDH Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 NE took 2 QBs, 6 WRs and 9 DBs. Is that the reason they're good? Not sure I see the correlation you're attempting to make. Get a franchise QB and then pick good players - regardless of position - and you'll be a quality franchise.
FireChan Posted February 7, 2017 Author Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) ??? who are you comparing them to ??? New England Picked 2 QB, 6 WR and 9 DB's. Cleveland picked 3 QB 6 WR and 10 DB's. We don't have a QB and haven't in 20 years. Taking 2 every 5 years is not a recipe for success. NE took 2 QBs, 6 WRs and 9 DBs. Is that the reason they're good? Not sure I see the correlation you're attempting to make. Get a franchise QB and then pick good players - regardless of position - and you'll be a quality franchise. See above. NE is good because they have a good QB. I see you ignored Oakland, Washington and Philly taking 3 and finding guys. Edited February 7, 2017 by FireChan
Beef Jerky Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Over the last 5 years. Bills with 2 QB's taken over 5 years in contrast to 7 DB's and 6 WR's. And no idea why we suck. Denver, Jets drafted 4 and they suck. Edited February 7, 2017 by Beef Jerky
boyst Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 wow! did you make this FC? great work. or... did someone else make this? even better work, don't tell anyone. anyway... carolina hasn't drafted a QB in 5 years, they must be crazy. they're the only team not to draft a qb my other big note is how much other teams draft DB's. i thought we'd have been higher. but 7th seems to put us in the middle. SF, yikes.
snafu Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Denver, Jets drafted 4 and they suck. ... but Oakland, Washington and Philly. And don't forget Tennessee and Tampa Bay.
Beef Jerky Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 ... but Oakland, Washington and Philly. And don't forget Tennessee and Tampa Bay. Yea half of them suck also. So lesson is it isn't how many QBs you draft... But did you draft the right one?
Seasons1992 Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 FireChan is on a roll for post-starting today.
FireChan Posted February 7, 2017 Author Posted February 7, 2017 Yea half of them suck also. So lesson is it isn't how many QBs you draft... But did you draft the right one? Maybe you have a better chance of drafting the right one if you draft more? Maybe a team like Buffalo drafting 2 QBs in 5 years with bums on the roster is indicative of how they prioritize the position?
Jauronimo Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 There is absolutely no meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from that mess above. Any attempt to do so should be ridiculed to the extent of one's ability.
PolishDave Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) There is absolutely no meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from that mess above. Any attempt to do so should be ridiculed to the extent of one's ability. I have to agree. Teams that took more QB’s Oakland 3 Denver 4 Cleveland 3 Jets 4 Phily 3 Washington 3 LA 3 How many of those teams have been to the Superbowl in that time frame? Answer 1 How many of those teams still suck? 4 out of 7 I don't see how this chart proves anything at all to be honest, at least not about quarterbacks. Edited February 7, 2017 by PolishDave
FireChan Posted February 7, 2017 Author Posted February 7, 2017 I have to agree. Teams that took more QBs Oakland 3 Denver 4 Cleveland 3 Jets 4 Phily 3 Washington 3 LA 3 How many of those teams have been to the Superbowl in that time frame? Answer 1 How many of those teams still suck? 4 out of 7 I don't see how this chart proves anything at all to be honest, at least not about quarterbacks. Only two teams make the Super Bowl every year. What a ridiculous standard.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) I actually think that the chart is really great. I think that the analysis that FC is trying to make is really stupid. Chan, if you wanted to make a point you should have talked about how few picks that the Bills have had comparatively. The stats are right there to tell you that you aren't out of line on QB, DB or WR. Only 8 teams have had less picks than you. If the point was to say "we suck because....." you should support it with the data that indicates others are doing better. Edited February 7, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
FireChan Posted February 7, 2017 Author Posted February 7, 2017 I actually think that the chart is really great. I think that the analysis that FC is trying to make is really stupid. Chan, if you wanted to make a point you should have talked about how few picks that the Bills have had comparatively. The stats are right there to tell you that you aren't out of line on QB, DB or WR. Only 8 teams have had less picks than you. If the point was to say "we suck because....." you should support it with the data that indicates others are doing better. Almost half the teams that took more QB's than us have found franchise or potential franchise guys. All the teams that took more QB's than us are dedicating more resources to finding QBs and have better chances to do so. There's your data support.
Augie Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Looks like 2 is about average. So, what's the point again? It's not just about how many we pick, we just need to hit on the guys we DO pick! I don't want to do an imitation of the Jets.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Almost half the teams that took more QB's than us have found franchise or potential franchise guys. All the teams that took more QB's than us are dedicating more resources to finding QBs and have better chances to do so. There's your data support. I think Polish Dave just listed the teams that took more QBs: Teams that took more QB’s Oakland 3 Yes Denver 4 Worse QBs than TT Cleveland 3 Worse QBs than TT Jets 4 Worse QBs than TT Phily 3 Who knows, he had some good and bad but has a chance Washington 3 Yes (but I like Cousins and he is a year older than Tyrod so we can't call him young) LA 3 Who knows but it isn't looking good This is who you are saying we should emulate? No thanks, find THE guy and take him. Do what Dallas did (even though that was lucky).
BuffaloHokie13 Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Almost half the teams that took more QB's than us have found franchise or potential franchise guys. All the teams that took more QB's than us are dedicating more resources to finding QBs and have better chances to do so. There's your data support. Okay, so I took count of the teams that made the playoffs over the same 5 year period. Here's what I got: Year AVG QBs Taken By Playoff Teams 2016 1.5 2015 1.58 2014 1.83 2013 1.75 2012 1.5 5 Year AVG 1.6 2 Teams made the Playoffs all 5 years: NE & GB. Both have drafted 2, just like us. 3 Teams made it 4/5: DEN, CIN, SEA. 4, 1, & 1 Respectively. 7 Teams made it 3/5: IND, SF, ATL, BAL, DET, HOU, & PIT. All selected 2 or fewer QBs over the 5 year span.
FireChan Posted February 7, 2017 Author Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Okay, so I took count of the teams that made the playoffs over the same 5 year period. Here's what I got: Year AVG QBs Taken By Playoff Teams 2016 1.5 2015 1.58 2014 1.83 2013 1.75 2012 1.5 5 Year AVG 1.6 2 Teams made the Playoffs all 5 years: NE & GB. Both have drafted 2, just like us. 3 Teams made it 4/5: DEN, CIN, SEA. 4, 1, & 1 Respectively. 7 Teams made it 3/5: IND, SF, ATL, BAL, DET, HOU, & PIT. All selected 2 or fewer QBs over the 5 year span. You're comparing teams that have franchise QB's to teams that don't. Obviously when you have Brady or Rodgers, it doesn't matter if they take 2 or 0. I think Polish Dave just listed the teams that took more QBs: Teams that took more QB’s Oakland 3 Yes Denver 4 Worse QBs than TT Cleveland 3 Worse QBs than TT Jets 4 Worse QBs than TT Phily 3 Who knows, he had some good and bad but has a chance Washington 3 Yes (but I like Cousins and he is a year older than Tyrod so we can't call him young) LA 3 Who knows but it isn't looking good This is who you are saying we should emulate? No thanks, find THE guy and take him. Do what Dallas did (even though that was lucky). Right 3/7 is almost half. OAK, Philly and Washington. Call the Eagles and offer TT for Wentz straight up and you'd get laughed at. Edited February 7, 2017 by FireChan
MDH Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 We don't have a QB and haven't in 20 years. Taking 2 every 5 years is not a recipe for success. See above. NE is good because they have a good QB. I see you ignored Oakland, Washington and Philly taking 3 and finding guys. Philly has found a guy? I'm sure Washington thought they found a guy after RG3's rookie year too, it doesn't work that way. And Wentz's star lost much of it's luster as the season went on. I wouldn't even say he had a good rookie year, he had the type of struggles you'd expect. We'll see if he takes the necessary steps forward in the next couple of years, but right now it's WAY too early to say "they've found a guy."
Recommended Posts