The Draft is a Total Crapshoot (Per Science)

[Sweats]

1 hour ago, finn said:

That could just be the laws of probability at work. If every team just threw darts at their draft board, at least some would have good results.

 

I've always thought the best draft strategy, at least for teams drafting high, would be to trade down incrementally for as many second-round picks as possible, and do the same from the other direction, trading up into the second round. End up with, say, six or seven second-round picks. The odds of hitting gold seem much higher than just two high picks. 

 

 

 

 

That's how i have envisioned our FO making their picks in the draft.......either the dart board or the ole spin the wheel-o-chance.

[bmur66]

You can’t measure “heart”.

[GunnerBill]

41 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Going back to 2014 (a ten year period), the Patriots have had more than seven picks in 9 out of the 10 seasons (usually between 9 and 11). Yet it really didn't help them all that much: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/draft.htm. There is a handful of very good players here, but overall it's pretty much a vast wasteland.

 

Yea having more picks does not equal winning the draft. You still have to evaluate. It isn't pot luck. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, SoMAn said:

Which teams do you have in mind that consistently restock their roster from the draft and a high percentage of players that contribute?

I'm not doubting you, just curious of which teams you considered that fit the description.

 

Take for example the Steelers.

 

That team is consistently excellent at drafting WR and pass rushers.

 

 

[eball]

Fans don't want to hear it or admit it, but the truth of the matter is that it takes a tremendous amount of luck to be consistently good in the NFL.  You can have the best organization in place and have a mediocre team, or a bunch of jokers in the front office and luck out with your QB.

 

The teams that stay consistently relevant have a combination of good luck with key draft picks and the ability to pivot and fix things that are going wrong through trades and free agency.

 

[PrimeTime101]

3 hours ago, Sweats said:

The quality of these threads is a total crapshoot IMO

Then don't read them..... 

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Probably a weird way to look at it but I believe the draft will get easier with NIL deals. These players will show who they are very early in college. 
 

 

Weird? No, this makes complete sense. Many of these kids come from poverty stricken homes. Now, some are racing around in Porsches with 100 grand in their pockets, and access to hot women, alcohol, and legalized weed (and God knows what else). 

 

I'm not insulting these kids. I'm not at all sure that if I was young, in a college with thousands of hot girls, with a cool million dollars that my behavior would be all that reasoned and mature. In fact, I would bet against it.

 

My guess is that owners (if they are smart) will allocate more resources to investigate, and even spy on some of these kids.

 

Jmo.

[GASabresIUFan]

I read the article and can see some merit to the argument, but then I look at where the best players are drafted and most of the time it early in the draft.  
 

I looked at WRs the other day and 53 WRs had 1000 yards in at least one season over the last 5 years. The draft breakdown was as follows:

1st rd - 19

2nd rd -15

3rd rd - 10

4th rd - 1

5th rd - 5

6th - 0

7th - 1
UDFA - 2

 

The scouts must be doing something right to get that distribution.  It proves to me that good players can come from anywhere, but most good players are drafted early.  Football is also weird.  There are so many different positions and many different systems so a player may be a bust in Buffalo and flourish elsewhere.  Now add injuries and character issues and I don’t think analytics will ever tell the whole story.  
 

I am a proponent of trading down and collecting more picks in the later rounds.  In rounds 4-7, the more lottery tickets you have the more likely you’ll get lucky and uncover a Shakir, Milano or Benford. One limiting factor is roster spots.  Where do you put all of these kids you want to develop? Put them on the practice squad and someone takes them.  Put them on the active roster and their inexperience could weaken your team.  
 

I would like to see a small change in the practice squad.  I think guys drafted prior to that football season can only be removed to another team through a trade or compensation.  For example, we had 2 7th rd picks in 2023 on our PS.  Both were grabbed by other teams.  I think we should receive at least a 7th rd pick as compensation for those players.  

Edited April 16 by GASabresIUFan

[Sweats]

38 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Then don't read them..... 

 

 

 

wow, your insight is profound......i feel a little dumber for having responded to this.

[BuffaloBill]

5 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

https://theathletic.com/5416007/2024/04/16/nfl-drafting-methods-insight-massey-thaler/?source=user_shared_article
 

Great article from the Athletic.  Basically says that teams routinely over-estimate their own ability to predict player performance and as a result overestimate the value of their own specific picks.  Instead, they should maximize the number of lottery tickets they’re buying.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

This is why I fear trading way up in the 1st round. Have to give up too much for a risky pick.

[ROCBillsBeliever]

2 hours ago, eball said:

Fans don't want to hear it or admit it, but the truth of the matter is that it takes a tremendous amount of luck to be consistently good in the NFL.  You can have the best organization in place and have a mediocre team, or a bunch of jokers in the front office and luck out with your QB.

 

The teams that stay consistently relevant have a combination of good luck with key draft picks and the ability to pivot and fix things that are going wrong through trades and free agency.

 

 

@eball Like Buffalo Rumblings podcast host, Bruce Nolan, says: Be as good as you can for as long as you can, and hope for a little luck 😉

2 hours ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

 

Take for example the Steelers.

 

That team is consistently excellent at drafting WR and pass rushers.

 

 

 

@Pine Barrens Mafia You know, this is the kind of meta-analysis we should really talk about. Is Beane head-hunting for the scouts that keep getting hits on high-value positions in the draft? 

 

Joe Marino, of Locked on Bills Podcast, noted the other day that Green Bay has quietly built a nasty WR corps, without a single 1st round pick (two 2nds, a 4th, and a 5th).

 

If I'm Beane, I would be in Terry's ear (or pocketbook), trying to get him to buy out some of Green Bay and Pittsburgh's scouts. That's what's going to make us successful, down the road. 4-D chess, man!

 

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, 34-78-83 said:

Change that to about 33% and I agree with the rest of what you said.

 

Are you guys talking overall, in the whole draft?

 

One factor with teams that are consistently good, is that their lower round draft picks may not stick on the drafting team because, "no room at the inn".  But they may stick on other rosters.  So one needs to consider how that's factored into this assessment.

Edited April 16 by Beck Water

[PrimeTime101]

3 hours ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

wow, your insight is profound......i feel a little dumber for having responded to this.

that was the whole idea

 

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, ROCBillsBeliever said:

 

@eball Like Buffalo Rumblings podcast host, Bruce Nolan, says: Be as good as you can for as long as you can, and hope for a little luck 😉

 

@Pine Barrens Mafia You know, this is the kind of meta-analysis we should really talk about. Is Beane head-hunting for the scouts that keep getting hits on high-value positions in the draft? 

 

Joe Marino, of Locked on Bills Podcast, noted the other day that Green Bay has quietly built a nasty WR corps, without a single 1st round pick (two 2nds, a 4th, and a 5th).

 

If I'm Beane, I would be in Terry's ear (or pocketbook), trying to get him to buy out some of Green Bay and Pittsburgh's scouts. That's what's going to make us successful, down the road. 4-D chess, man!

 

 

Let's unpack this.  "Green Bay has quietly built a nasty receiver corps with 2 2nds, a 4th, and a 5th". 

 

That would be Jayden Reed (64 for 793), Christian Watson (28 for 422' 41 for 611 last year), Romeo Doubs (59 for 674; 42 for 425 last year), and Dontayvion Wicks (39 for 581).  Add in 2 - 350 yd seasons from 2 TE and 2 - 230 yd seasons from 2 RBs and you account for most of the receiving productivity for a team that was 12th in passing yards and 15th in passing attempts.  Now obviously a lot goes into this - the QB, the OL, the design of the offense - but none of those numbers are exactly Chase/Boyd/Higgins or Brown/Smith/Goeddert or Hill/Waddle level nastiness.

 

So let's keep unpacking.  You're pointing at exceptional scouting on the part of GB and Pitt, such that you suggest Beane hire their scouts away.  So let's ask, are these WR exceptional for where they were drafted?  Well Reed (pick 50) was obviously a good choice, and better last season than Mingo (pick 39).  But, he was not as productive as Rashee Rice (pick 51).  Josh Downs, drafted at 79, was almost as productive, and Tank Dell (pick 61) was more productive on a per-game basis. 

 

More unpacking.  Watson is the 3rd most productive WR from the 2nd round 2022, behind Pickens and Alec Pierce (both drafted after Watson).  Doubs, drafted in the 4th, is an outlier and was almost as productive as Watson.  Maybe GB great scouting ought to have drafted Pickens or Pierce?

 

Doubs has been a very good choice.  He has been more productive than Buffalo's 2022 pick Khalil Shakir.  But, Shakir had a 2nd season that was almost as good (39 for 611) as Doubs 2nd season, and that's WITH being behind a #1 WR who dominates the target share in Diggs.  I think it may be TBD as to what Shakir can be with a more equitable target share.  Doubs had 96 targets, and caught 61.5% of them; Shakir had 45 targets, and caught 86.7% of them.  On a per-target basis, one can make an argument for Shakir being the better choice.  

 

Joe Marino podcast is every day, right?  So I guess he needs stuff to talk about.  If his point is that 2nd round and later round picks can fill out a decent WR corps, Sure!  I 100% agree!   But that doesn't give you a "freakazoid" WR who can take over a game, either.

 

If his idea is that the Bills should lure away Pittsburgh and GB scouts because their WR drafting is so much better than ours (or is that your idea?)  I don't think the results are terribly persuasive.  We all missed Puka Nacua, so if we're going to hire away scouts, let's get the guy who scouted HIM.  

 

I guess I'd like to finish by pointing out that 4th round Gabe Davis was more productive than Reed on a per-target basis (62 vs 92 targets, Davis had 45 for 745), has shown that he can contribute that well or better 2 years in a row, and yet far from extolling him as an example of good drafting there was a lot of drum-beating that Gabe Davis just "wasn't a true #2" and we needed better.

 

I kinda wonder if there isn't a bit of "grass is greener" syndrome going on here.

 

 

 

Edited April 16 by Beck Water

[st pete gogolak]

I remember Jimmy Johnson being a big believer in accumulating draft picks.  Cowboys hit on quite a few but had their fair share of misses.  I also recall his thoughts on kickers - “kickers are fungible”.

[PrimeTime101]

2 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

I remember Jimmy Johnson being a big believer in accumulating draft picks.  Cowboys hit on quite a few but had their fair share of misses.  I also recall his thoughts on kickers - “kickers are fungible”.

That Dallas Era, The Cowboys absolutely destroyed it on a few trades they made, getting themselves as good as they were during those years. 

[SoCal Deek]

Trust the Science dammit! 😂

[Beck Water]

3 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:

I read the article and can see some merit to the argument, but then I look at where the best players are drafted and most of the time it early in the draft.  
 

I looked at WRs the other day and 53 WRs had 1000 yards in at least one season over the last 5 years. The draft breakdown was as follows:

1st rd - 19

2nd rd -15

3rd rd - 10

4th rd - 1

5th rd - 5

6th - 0

7th - 1
UDFA - 2

 

The scouts must be doing something right to get that distribution.  It proves to me that good players can come from anywhere, but most good players are drafted early.  Football is also weird.  There are so many different positions and many different systems so a player may be a bust in Buffalo and flourish elsewhere.  Now add injuries and character issues and I don’t think analytics will ever tell the whole story.  
 

I am a proponent of trading down and collecting more picks in the later rounds.  In rounds 4-7, the more lottery tickets you have the more likely you’ll get lucky and uncover a Shakir, Milano or Benford. One limiting factor is roster spots.  Where do you put all of these kids you want to develop? Put them on the practice squad and someone takes them.  Put them on the active roster and their inexperience could weaken your team.  
 

I would like to see a small change in the practice squad.  I think guys drafted prior to that football season can only be removed to another team through a trade or compensation.  For example, we had 2 7th rd picks in 2023 on our PS.  Both were grabbed by other teams.  I think we should receive at least a 7th rd pick as compensation for those players.  

 

You could also look here

and here

 

I could be mistaken, but I think everyone agrees that typically, the more talented players get drafted in earlier rounds.

I think the question is more - given a specific first round pick - #23 say - is it better to move up to, say, #19 in order to get one's choice of all the 2023 WR?

Or would it actually be better to trade down  and get some extra "lottery tickets"? 

 

For the Vikings, who stood pat and drafted Jordan Addison at #23, they actually got the best of the 1st round WR in 2023 draft.  But they theoretically could have gotten a more productive player by trading back into the 2nd.

 

I think the point of the OP's article is that the odds of the next player at the position being better by some metric (starting more games was mentioned, receiving yards would be another) are only slightly over a "coin flip", so trading up within a round, is probably not the best overall long term strategy.

[JimmyNoodles]

I couldn't read the aricle becasue of the paywall, but that premise is correct IMO.  The more swings you get in the draft, the better chances you have of getting a hit.  Early rounds (1-3) render better athletes, so it obvously makes a difference where your picks lie.  While I generally like Beane, I hate his draft philosophy of moving up to get "his guy."  It costs us swings at the bat to get young cheap talent.  Here are the early trade ups.  QB you have to move up for, but the rest are very debatable how well we did.    

 

In 2018 he moved up for a QB, which worked out because the Bills were lucky nobody selected Allen before us. Edmunds cost us a 3rd (we got back a 5th).

2019 sent a 5th for Cody Ford.  Gave up 2 4th rounders for Knox.

2020 trade for Diggs, sent a 1st, 5th, 6th, and a 2021 4th.  Got a 7th back  

2021 no trade up. 

2022 Elam cost a 4th

2023 Kincaid cost a 4th.       

Edited April 16 by JimmyNoodles

[ROCBillsBeliever]

42 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Let's unpack this.  "Green Bay has quietly built a nasty receiver corps with 2 2nds, a 4th, and a 5th". 

 

That would be Jayden Reed (64 for 793), Christian Watson (28 for 422' 41 for 611 last year), Romeo Doubs (59 for 674; 42 for 425 last year), and Dontayvion Wicks (39 for 581).  Add in 2 - 350 yd seasons from 2 TE and 2 - 230 yd seasons from 2 RBs and you account for most of the receiving productivity for a team that was 12th in passing yards and 15th in passing attempts.  Now obviously a lot goes into this - the QB, the OL, the design of the offense - but none of those numbers are exactly Chase/Boyd/Higgins or Brown/Smith/Goeddert or Hill/Waddle level nastiness.

 

So let's keep unpacking.  You're pointing at exceptional scouting on the part of GB and Pitt, such that you suggest Beane hire their scouts away.  So let's ask, are these WR exceptional for where they were drafted?  Well Reed (pick 50) was obviously a good choice, and better last season than Mingo (pick 39).  But, he was not as productive as Rashee Rice (pick 51).  Josh Downs, drafted at 79, was almost as productive, and Tank Dell (pick 61) was more productive on a per-game basis. 

 

More unpacking.  Watson is the 3rd most productive WR from the 2nd round 2022, behind Pickens and Alec Pierce (both drafted after Watson).  Doubs, drafted in the 4th, is an outlier and was almost as productive as Watson.  Maybe GB great scouting ought to have drafted Pickens or Pierce?

 

Doubs has been a very good choice.  He has been more productive than Buffalo's 2022 pick Khalil Shakir.  But, Shakir had a 2nd season that was almost as good (39 for 611) as Doubs 2nd season, and that's WITH being behind a #1 WR who dominates the target share in Diggs.  I think it may be TBD as to what Shakir can be with a more equitable target share.  Doubs had 96 targets, and caught 61.5% of them; Shakir had 45 targets, and caught 86.7% of them.  On a per-target basis, one can make an argument for Shakir being the better choice.  

 

Joe Marino podcast is every day, right?  So I guess he needs stuff to talk about.  If his point is that 2nd round and later round picks can fill out a decent WR corps, Sure!  I 100% agree!   But that doesn't give you a "freakazoid" WR who can take over a game, either.

 

If his idea is that the Bills should lure away Pittsburgh and GB scouts because their WR drafting is so much better than ours (or is that your idea?)  I don't think the results are terribly persuasive.  We all missed Puka Nacua, so if we're going to hire away scouts, let's get the guy who scouted HIM.  

 

I guess I'd like to finish by pointing out that 4th round Gabe Davis was more productive than Reed on a per-target basis (62 vs 92 targets, Davis had 45 for 745), has shown that he can contribute that well or better 2 years in a row, and yet far from extolling him as an example of good drafting there was a lot of drum-beating that Gabe Davis just "wasn't a true #2" and we needed better.

 

I kinda wonder if there isn't a bit of "grass is greener" syndrome going on here.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't say it was Marino's idea to lure away GB and Pitt's scouts; that's just my take. All I'm saying is people on here are very likely to freak out if we don't take a WR in the 1st, while other team have proven capable of taking good WR in the 2nd and later.

 

Piggybacking on that is that if other teams have gotten good results, why should our staff ignore that? 

 

Point on Pooka, of course. I was just mentioning two teams who have landed good WR outside of round one. 

 

And yes: I do think that paying attention to teams that draft a position we need is probably wise.