Draft Analysis - We're All Debi from Depew

[Dunkirk Donski]

Debbie from Depew.  I’m gonna marry that girl one day

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Buddy Hix said:

Terry Fontenot destroys this entire post

Buddy Hix:

Early in my TBD days I almost created the username “Cruddy Trix”

Now that the cat is outta the bag, anyone is free to use it 😎

Edited April 28 by Dunkirk Donski

[hondo in seattle]

I'm not opposed to inexpert second-guessing.  I do it, too.  I do question the name-calling, hair-pulling, and gnashing-of-teeth.  Especially, the name-calling.  

 

Years ago, I would read draft profiles on all our picks and watch their highlights.  And then I would turn to a select group of trusted experts.  High up on that list was Gil Brandt, who was a scouting innovator, helped Dallas win some Super Bowls, and was inducted in the Hall of Fame. 

 

After I digested all that information, I thought I had a reasonably good idea of how our draft went.  

 

But I noticed that a lot of even Brandt's takes turned out to be wrong.  Of course, Brandt-the-Commentator didn't have the scouting staff and other resources that Brandt-the-Vice-President did.  But I think the bigger issue is that it's impossible to unerringly project the future success of college players.  There are just too many variables at play.

 

I'm now like Socrates when it comes to the draft: I know that I know nothing.  There is no certitude here.  There can't be.  

 

 

 

 

[Einstein]

20 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

I'm not opposed to inexpert second-guessing.  I do it, too.  I do question the name-calling, hair-pulling, and gnashing-of-teeth.  Especially, the name-calling.  

 

Years ago, I would read draft profiles on all our picks and watch their highlights.  And then I would turn to a select group of trusted experts.  High up on that list was Gil Brandt, who was a scouting innovator, helped Dallas win some Super Bowls, and was inducted in the Hall of Fame. 

 

After I digested all that information, I thought I had a reasonably good idea of how our draft went.  

 

But I noticed that a lot of even Brandt's takes turned out to be wrong.  Of course, Brandt-the-Commentator didn't have the scouting staff and other resources that Brandt-the-Vice-President did.  But I think the bigger issue is that it's impossible to unerringly project the future success of college players.  There are just too many variables at play.

 

I'm now like Socrates when it comes to the draft: I know that I know nothing.  There is no certitude here.  There can't be.  

 

How many of Brandts prognostications failed as a percentage basis compared to NFL front offices? Because NFL front offices fail up to 70% of the time as well.

 

 

Edited April 28 by Einstein

[oldmanfan]

28 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

This is again anecdotal with no actual evidence.

 

How many of Brandts prognostications failed as a percentage basis compared to NFL front offices? Because NFL front offices fail up to 70% of the time as well.

You keep arguing about things being anecdotal.  There’s an easy solution to your complaint:  go find the data.  

 

You also claim that non-experts can do as good a job as non-experts.  There are a huge number of variables in trying to prognosticate how an NFL draft pick will play out, some within the player’s control and some not.  The tremendous number of variables makes a good draft being where 50% of guys selected make it.  It is hubris that some think they are better than an NFL office with access to scouting reports, film, information from college coaches, personal interviews with players and such.  Occasionally some will luck out and pick better (and of course that can’t be decided for years after a draft vs. some of the hysteria we’ve seen here the past 24 hours).
 

The idea that non-experts are as good as experts is somewhat trivial when talking about football.  It becomes a real issue when talking about more important subject matter.  Like during Covid when I had hairdressers on Facebook trying to tell me, a scientist, they know more about viruses.  The advent of social media and with it people thinking their opinion is as valid as the next guy, and where actual expertise is ignored, is dangerous.

Edited April 28 by oldmanfan

[hondo in seattle]

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

This is again anecdotal with no actual evidence.

 

How many of Brandts prognostications failed as a percentage basis compared to NFL front offices? Because NFL front offices fail up to 70% of the time as well.

 

Einstein, you know drafting isn't an exact science.  You also know it's not purely a game of chance either.   It's something in between.  Brandt-the-Commentator may have been right more often than some front offices, but he wasn't right often enough for me to feel like I could entirely trust his judgment.  

 

Was it luck or skill when Bill Walsh drafted Joe Montana?  I don't know.  But I do know that Walsh made more good picks than other GMs during his time.  I think Beane does, too.  Or, more broadly, I think Beane has put together a better roster than most (though not all) GMs in the league. 

 

I also think it's absolutely fair for us to judge Beane by the roster he's put together.  We can evaluate players like Allen and Cook because we've witnessed how they perform at the NFL level.  I just think it's fan hubris to call Beane a moron or idiot for a draft pick when we mafiosos lack the expertise to make those judgments.  We might not like a pick.  Fine.  But let's not rush to judgment and call each other names.  

[PBF81]

2 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

I think people are much more pissed off over our philosophy than specific players. Even if they hated Keon Coleman, most people will acknowledge it's a crap shoot and that he could end up being a very good player for us. I think where people do have a legitimate beef is just in the lack of resources used at WR as a whole. They see a GM who has taken one WR in the first two rounds during his tenure. Who post Diggs being traded had a decent hole created. One given our resources was likely not going to be filled in FA or even in FA and the draft. But I think people are pretty frustrated that we seemed to do the bare minimum to remedy that for even next year. They sort of think how can we not have at least developmental needs with a late pick? It's pure neglect to them.

 

I feel we are likely better off than people think as I expect Kincaid to become a pro bowl TE this year. I also expect us to live in two TE and primarily be a running team. That is what we did the last 7 games last year when we went 7-1. We barely threw to WR's in that stretch. I think the perception was we would have wanted to do so more. I'm not sure that's the case. I certainly understand why people are pissed off. As a whole, looking at the attention to this position. It has been rather poor. As one poster mentioned it seems like we just follow KC with everything we do. Since they won SB's without the elite WR it seems like we have said look! We don't require this! The funny thing being, KC seems to be really trying to increase production in that position. So even if they found success they seem to have recognized how limiting the lack of talent ahs been for them.

 

Good post.  I know that there's at least a few people including myself that think that we're not very original offensively.  From where we sit, we see, for instance, McD/the-team, trying to "do what KC's doing," namely feature their TE as their top receiver.  If true, whether that works with Kincaid v. Kelce remains to be seen, but it's not original.  

 

What many of us are looking for is some originality in scheming the offense, and it should be incredibly possible with Allen while not merely having Allen play schoolyard ball.  

 

To start, until Allen starts utilizing his short-medium targets far more optimally, which have typically been wide open often due to Diggs & Davis going deeper (until Brady took over), we leave quite a bit on the table offensively for games.  

 

Running the ball and relying on your D is great when it works, but there should also be a serious effort made to optimize the passing game.  It gets frustrating watching Allen go deep when there's a guy wide open in the flats or to the short outside where if he hit that guy we'd have a 1st-down and possibly a big play there.  Sometimes the downfield stuff works, other times it doesn't.  The point is that we can extend drives and score (TDs or FGs) more often than we do with far more efficient offense.  

 

As to the 7-1, that's the narrative, but the truth is a little different.  Yes, "we barely threw to the WRs in that stretch," but we also hardly won decisively.  The results look far more impressive than they actually were.  For example ... 

 

We barely lost to Philly, but Philly went 1-5 after that, 1-6 if we count the playoffs, and were incredibly overrated as many had said.  

We then beat the Chiefs who were without Pacheco, and beat Dallas decisively. 

But after that we struggled despite going 3-0 against the Chargers, Pats, and Fins.  

Against the Chargers who were without their three top players (Hebert, Allen, and Bosa) we beat them in last-second fashion with a FG.  Our top D allowed Easton Stic to play a pretty decent game with WRs/TEs in that game that were worse than our top-5 WRs/TEs right now.  

We barely beat a crap NE team on the merits of a defensive TD, not offense.  

We also barely beat Miami on the merits of a STs TD return.  

 

If we struggled to beat teams of that caliber at those times, and largely due to anemic offense, it's hardly a feather in anyone's cap on the staff.  

 

People can dislike this post all they want, but the reality is that we could just as easily have gone 2-4 over that stretch.  You'll see what I'm referring to this season I'd guess if our play like that continues.  If that happens, then the discussions here will be incredibly interesting.  

 

If we really want to be great, then we need someone that can see what Allen does best, figure out how to conform the rest of the team around him offensively, and have Beane draft around that.  So far that's been far from the case, which is the reason for most peoples' frustrations.  We also do not have anyone on staff that's suited to doing that and don't expect McD to hire anyone like that, because it would conflict with his "complimentary football" regimen, and which would fine if it actually worked, but the reality is that it held our O down, and that's hardly the ticket when you have a QB like Allen.  It's like taking a Ferrari to a go-cart track.  

 

 

[cale]

7 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

Every blue moon, an intrepid crime podcaster breaks a criminal case.  But imagine your daughter was kidnapped and you had a binary choice: (A) You can have the FBI, with all its trained investigators, forensic scientists, labs, subpoena power, police connections, and other resources handle the investigation.  (B)  You can have Debi from Depew, who views herself as an investigative reporter because she podcasts from her mom’s basement, search for your daughter.  I don’t know about you, but I’d choose A.   

 

It's part of fandom to stand by our unfounded opinions, call the GM a moron, and generally spout nonsense. But, if we want to be honest about it, we’re all - to varying degrees - Debi from Depew. 

 

Fans are notoriously lousy at assessing draft picks.  Many of us criticized Beane when he picked Josh in the draft while few of us offered up flowers when he chose Milano.  And, look, talent evaluation is hard.  Go back and look at what sportswriters said five years ago about the draft.  Their hit rate isn’t high.  Even the analytic guys, armed with their algorithms and statistical analyses, aren’t good.  They told us that if Josh became a successful NFL QB, it would shake the very foundations of all math, science, and human knowledge. 

 

I doubt if there’s anyone on this board who knows as much about scouting college players as Tyler Pratt who starts researching and evaluating players at 5:30 am each day and keeps at it until 8pm.  Tyler is an area scout for the Bills Personnel Department which includes 18 dedicated fulltime professionals, not including the admin folks, and is aided by 7 equally dedicated professionals in the Analytics & Football Research Department.  While none of us matches Pratt hours and expertise, we don’t hesitate to act like we’re smarter than Beane and his entire, fantastically resourced organization. 

 

So when someone starts spouting that Beane is an idiot because he drafted a slow wideout, a lineman with short arms, and a guy who never played football before, I just yawn.  Debi from Depew doesn’t interest me.  Beane and his team have spent millions of dollars, studied thousands of hours of tape, conducted hundreds of interviews.  I just hope the Bills FBI (Foot Ball Investigative) unit is better than the FBI units at our rivals.  Time will tell.  But I trust Beane and his team of experts far more than Debi from Depew.

Curious. Have you read the book “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

[hondo in seattle]

I've been thinking about Einstein's complaints about 'anecdotal' arguments.   My argument isn't actual an empirical one; it's one of values.  I think people should be humble and kind.  I can't back that up with science.  

 

But I think Einstein is looking for proof that pros are better than amateurs at scouting.  As far as I know, no one's yet done a double-blind randomized controlled trial to determine if professional scouting staffs are better at talent evaluation than fans.   But wouldn't it be fun to try?

 

Except I wouldn't want the experiment to be entirely random.  I'd run it like this:  The Chiefs, Pats, Jets, Fins, and 12 other teams would be required to fire all their scouts.  Instead, they'd pick some random fan the day before the draft to make all their picks.  The Bills and 15 other teams would be allowed to retain their professional personnel departments and scout prospective players as normal.  We'd do this for ten years and then compare the results.  

 

We could collect the empirical data Einstein is looking for and win a bunch of games in the process.  

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

You keep arguing about things being anecdotal.  There’s an easy solution to your complaint:  go find the data.  

 

You also claim that non-experts can do as good a job as non-experts.  There are a huge number of variables in trying to prognosticate how an NFL draft pick will play out, some within the player’s control and some not.  The tremendous number of variables makes a good draft being where 50% of guys selected make it.  It is hubris that some think they are better than an NFL office with access to scouting reports, film, information from college coaches, personal interviews with players and such.  Occasionally some will luck out and pick better (and of course that can’t be decided for years after a draft vs. some of the hysteria we’ve seen here the past 24 hours).
 

The idea that non-experts are as good as experts is somewhat trivial when talking about football.  It becomes a real issue when talking about more important subject matter.  Like during Covid when I had hairdressers on Facebook trying to tell me, a scientist, they know more about viruses.  The advent of social media and with it people thinking their opinion is as valid as the next guy, and where actual expertise is ignored, is dangerous.

 

Yes, by virtue of what football is, non-experts who spend considerable time doing their homework can guess at nearly the same rate that “experts” do.

 

Keeping in mind that “experts” are just normal people like the non-experts, except due to connections they are able to be paid for it.

 

Edited April 29 by Einstein

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

Yes, by virtue of what it is, non-experts who spend considerable time doing their homework can guess at nearly the same rate that “experts” do.

 

Keeping in mind that “experts” are just normal people like the non-experts, except due to connections they are able to be paid for it.

No.  In general experts are experts because they have pursued specific training and education to their area and spend years in the field doing the work.  The connection thing is silly.

[HappyDays]

3 hours ago, SoTier said:

The Chiefs' WR room last season consisted of Mecole Hardman, Richie James, Skyy Moore, Rashee Rice, Justin Ross, Kadarius Toney, Marquez Valdes-Scantling, Montrell Washington, and Justin Watson.  Who were Mahomes' primary WRs in 2023?  Hardman, Rice, Valdes-Scantling.

 

The Chiefs are a poor example for a myriad of reasons that can be boiled down to two things:

 

1) Their offense was in fact worse last year, primarily because their WRs mostly stunk. It's like everybody forgot about this because they won the Super Bowl. It was by far their worst offense of the Mahomes era. For the first time they had to play on the road in the playoffs solely because their offense wasn't talented enough.

 

2) There are a number of factors about their team that allow them to overcome flaws no other franchise can overcome. I'm not going to take time listing all of those factors, they are plainly obvious after a minute of thought.

 

We shouldn't be mimicking the Chiefs strategy. We should be trying to overwhelm them and the rest of the NFL with pure offensive firepower. The first window's strategy didn't work yet the second window is starting off with the same exact strategy. I really don't understand how anybody can point to the unicorn franchise of this generation and act like that means the strategy isn't flawed.

[LeviF]

Regarding the example, there’s a very famous recent story about a dad who found the feds so useless he tracked and rescued his daughter from California to southern Mexico where she was held captive by the cartel. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

8 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

Every blue moon, an intrepid crime podcaster breaks a criminal case.  But imagine your daughter was kidnapped and you had a binary choice: (A) You can have the FBI, with all its trained investigators, forensic scientists, labs, subpoena power, police connections, and other resources handle the investigation.  (B)  You can have Debi from Depew, who views herself as an investigative reporter because she podcasts from her mom’s basement, search for your daughter.  I don’t know about you, but I’d choose A.   

 

It's part of fandom to stand by our unfounded opinions, call the GM a moron, and generally spout nonsense. But, if we want to be honest about it, we’re all - to varying degrees - Debi from Depew. 

 

Fans are notoriously lousy at assessing draft picks.  Many of us criticized Beane when he picked Josh in the draft while few of us offered up flowers when he chose Milano.  And, look, talent evaluation is hard.  Go back and look at what sportswriters said five years ago about the draft.  Their hit rate isn’t high.  Even the analytic guys, armed with their algorithms and statistical analyses, aren’t good.  They told us that if Josh became a successful NFL QB, it would shake the very foundations of all math, science, and human knowledge. 

 

I doubt if there’s anyone on this board who knows as much about scouting college players as Tyler Pratt who starts researching and evaluating players at 5:30 am each day and keeps at it until 8pm.  Tyler is an area scout for the Bills Personnel Department which includes 18 dedicated fulltime professionals, not including the admin folks, and is aided by 7 equally dedicated professionals in the Analytics & Football Research Department.  While none of us matches Pratt hours and expertise, we don’t hesitate to act like we’re smarter than Beane and his entire, fantastically resourced organization. 

 

So when someone starts spouting that Beane is an idiot because he drafted a slow wideout, a lineman with short arms, and a guy who never played football before, I just yawn.  Debi from Depew doesn’t interest me.  Beane and his team have spent millions of dollars, studied thousands of hours of tape, conducted hundreds of interviews.  I just hope the Bills FBI (Foot Ball Investigative) unit is better than the FBI units at our rivals.  Time will tell.  But I trust Beane and his team of experts far more than Debi from Depew.

 

Remember too, fan is short for fanatic, so consider then who you're dealing with.

 

Many people here wanted Beane to double down on Franklyn, he's an idiot for not taking him, but 31 other GM's did the same 3 times before Denver finally took him.  I do find it interesting how every year certain players forecast to be picked high, drop and often keep dropping.  All 32 teams for some reason know the same thing and value him equally except the fans and media.

 

The classic this weekend to me was how all the other GM's are trading up, but Beane is trading down, what's he thinking, the moron.  News flash, for every GM that trades up there has to be another trading down.

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

No.  In general experts are experts because they have pursued specific training and education to their area and spend years in the field doing the work.  The connection thing is silly.

 

You’re starting to get at where i’m coming from. NFL front offices don’t have “experts” in my opinion. Not in the sense that one can be an expert in chemistry, for example. Meaning, a static profession where there are rights/wrongs/factual data that is objective and doesn’t change largely depending on the opinion of each person you ask.

 

For example: A neutral Oxygen atom has 8 protons, 8 valence electrons and 8 neutrons. There is no disagreeance among experts because the fact is static. Ask every Chemist expert and they will all say the same thing. This is not the same in football - you can ask 50 scouts how good a player is and they will have 50 different opinions. You can’t be an expert in that. Especially when you’re wrong 70% of the time.

 

But i’m on a flight to India and no one wants to read us squabble, so you may have the last word.

 

Goodnight and Go Bills!!!

 

 

 

Edited April 29 by Einstein

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

4 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I would like to see some non-anecdotal data for this assertion.

 

A few years back an analysis was run on the Bills draft record during their drought. Nearly 20 years of data. In that span, it was shown via analysis that if the Bills front office had simply followed a publicly available player ranking (think: Kiper, McShay, etc), they would have drafted more impact players than they actually did.

 

A similar one was down for Oakland I believe.

Thats right - the professional NFL front offices of multiple teams, with access to dozens of scouts, in-person interviews, and player data galore, was beaten out by a generic player ranking list. 

 

Too many people buy into the “expert” fallacy. That simply because someone does something for a living, that they are better at that job than someone who doesn’t do it for a living. It’s not always accurate. 

 

Yes but you're comparing what the Bills did against what I'd label a semi professional and who also does it for a living.  I wouldn't be shocked if Kiper or McShay have a staff themselves and even if they don't the amount of time they invest in this is likely as much as many scouts do.  It is their full time profession and have doors opened for them to gather info that very likely no poster here come close to. 

 

So the fact that Kiper of McShay can do better doesn't do much of anything to prove that posters here can even come close to being as good.

[Watkins101]

I keep seeing people comparing fans’ reactions to the Coleman pick to the wrong Josh outcry when Allen was drafted. This seems utterly ridiculous to me, as their situations are pretty far apart. Josh Allen was as boom-or-bust of a prospect as they come. He was most likely to either be a star or a complete waste of a pick, and there was unlikely to be any Inbetween. Whereas Coleman, his ceiling according to most is a 2, and his floor is a depth receiver, a red zone threat with good hands, but not enough impact in the middle of the field to be a starter. Really am not seeing the comparison at all.

Edited April 29 by Watkins101

[hondo in seattle]

1 hour ago, cale said:

Curious. Have you read the book “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

 

I haven't read the book but am familiar with the concept.   

 

I don't think any individual fan can compete with a pro scouting department.  But I think the idea of a collective group of smart fans competing with a professional scouting department is interesting.  For example, could the fans on this website collectively make better picks than Beane and his staff???   

 

I went to college 40 years ago and remember little, but I do remember this...  In a psych class, the professor handed out a list of random items and asked us to list the ones we would want with us if we were astronauts faced with an emergency situation in space.  Then we did the same exercise in 6 person groups.  I was cursed to be grouped with the most unscientific, illogical clowns in the class.  Or so I thought.  To my shock, our group list more closely resembled the official NASA list than my personal list.  Amazingly, every group list was better than any individual's list.  Collective intelligence is a remarkable thing.  

 

But it has limits too - group think, for example.  

 

So now I'm curious...  Do you think a large mafia group can draft better than Beane and his staff?  

 

 

[Beck Water]

9 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

Fans are notoriously lousy at assessing draft picks.  Many of us criticized Beane when he picked Josh in the draft while few of us offered up flowers when he chose Milano.  And, look, talent evaluation is hard.  Go back and look at what sportswriters said five years ago about the draft.  Their hit rate isn’t high.  Even the analytic guys, armed with their algorithms and statistical analyses, aren’t good.  They told us that if Josh became a successful NFL QB, it would shake the very foundations of all math, science, and human knowledge. 

 

LOL.  A few years back I wanted to know what the hit rate of various sportwriters actually was

 

I couldn't find most of their grades or mocks online.  They not only lack the professional accountability that professional scouts have - they actively hide their work from people who might want to check them 3 or 5 years down the road.

 

Anyway, the foaming at the mouth, gnashing of teeth, and beating of breasts about WR this draft does in fact remind me of the foaming at the mouth which occurred after Josh was drafted, and really didn't let up for about 3 1/2 years (mid-season 2020)

[TBBills Fan]

9 hours ago, Solomon Grundy said:

Is Debi a hottie? 😎

I lost track. We don't want Debi to find the kid?   But what if Debi moonlights as an "Equalizer". I mean, Debi may get ***** done. 

[BuffaloRebound]

23 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I haven't read the book but am familiar with the concept.   

 

I don't think any individual fan can compete with a pro scouting department.  But I think the idea of a collective group of smart fans competing with a professional scouting department is interesting.  For example, could the fans on this website collectively make better picks than Beane and his staff???   

 

I went to college 40 years ago and remember little, but I do remember this...  In a psych class, the professor handed out a list of random items and asked us to list the ones we would want with us if we were astronauts faced with an emergency situation in space.  Then we did the same exercise in 6 person groups.  I was cursed to be grouped with the most unscientific, illogical clowns in the class.  Or so I thought.  To my shock, our group list more closely resembled the official NASA list than my personal list.  Amazingly, every group list was better than any individual's list.  Collective intelligence is a remarkable thing.  

 

But it has limits too - group think, for example.  

 

So now I'm curious...  Do you think a large mafia group can draft better than Beane and his staff?  

 

 

This is like the topic asking how many passes you’d complete in an NFL game.  The people who do this for a living have access to medical information, college coaches, college teammates, get to interview and work out the prospects, and have gone through this cycle 10, 20 or even 30 years.  You can’t compare that type of knowledge and access to information to some guy who watches lots of game tape.