Steely Dan Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Linkage 6. Chris! I know you want to go CB 1st round, a lot of people want to go WR. What are the chances of the Bills going DE there, given the age of our current De's? Thanks! Sam CB: I don't necessarily want to go cornerback in the first round. I'd prefer a receiver, but I don't think the value is there at 11 for a receiver. There are no truly elite prospects at the position that are borderline top 10 talent. The chances of the Bills going with a defensive end at 11 are pretty slim in my opinion. I can see them drafting a young fourth defensive end for the roster, but if that happens any earlier than round four I'd be surprised.
dave mcbride Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 An interesting point about the Pats and DTs: When the Saints cut Jonathan Sullivan (picked sixth overall) a couple of years back, the Pats immediately jumped on him and signed him up. They ended up cutting him too -- he really was a bust, and not just in a bad place -- but at the same time, you have to give them credit for checking under the hood vis-a-vis a guy *everyone* thought was going to be a good player coming out of Georgia.
AKC Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!! My original post used numbers regarding DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've tried to accomodate your opinion by combining WRs and DBs to make them a single quantification, which as I've pointed out makes no sense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the game. Let me once more show you how your combining WRs and DBs as some block versus DL is bad math- An NFL defense averages using 3.5 Defensive linemen on any defensive play. An NFL defense averages using 4.3 DBs on any defensive play. An NFL offense averages using 2.75 WRs on any offensive play. Your bad math of combining the WRs and DBs when the original post in no way supports that means that you are now comparing the weight of 3.5 players on the field per respective (in this case defensive) play against a combined weight of 7.05 players on the field per respective play in team needs for the combination of WRs and DBs. You've fabricated the equation based upon your desire to support your argument, but even then the facts are not in your favor. You've added WRs and DBs to come out with a "combo" number. We know that the "combo" provides virtually twice the number of players on the field at any one time versus the DL number, but let's give your bad math a run to see how it works: We've been using the post 2000 draft picks. You've selected the first round, my original study was of the top 15 picks since we're drafting in the top half of the draft this year. But we'll use your equation instead of mine. The bottom teams: Buffalo 3 "combo" players and 1 DL Detroit 4 "combo" players and 0 DL Arizona 3 "combo" and 1 DL Raiders 5 combo and 0 DL Those are bottom feeders- bad teams with bad drafting patterns and most important, bad results. This is using your equation, not mine. How about the Super Bowl teams? Pats* 3 DL and 1 "combo" player Giants 2 DL 2 "combo" players Chicago 2 DL and 1 combo Philly 3 DL and 1 combo You are using bad math when you try to somehow claim the Giants drafting of 2 DL versus 2 combo players supports your argument (tie)- the reality is that the Giants as a 4-3 team will be using twice as many of your "combo" players on offense and defense than they will DL, meaning that they drafted twice as many DL players versus "combo" players when weighted for the total players on the field for their respective specialties. This doesn't seem that difficult to understand- if you're still struggling with it tell me what it is you don't get about the combination of DBs and WRs having double the numbers on average playing for a team in their offenses on the field at any time. Indy is an acknowledged exception with 3 combo and 1 DL, but their strength of offense is also an accepted exception to the NFL rule- occasionally a better offensive team wins a Super Bowl, but far more often it's the best defensive teams in the hunt every year. Pittsburgh has 2 combo and 1 DL, but playing in a 3-4, even that is weighted towards the DLine since they would use more than twice the combo players on the field as DL on their respective plays. So I don't know how you are coming up with those false "good teams/bad teams" statements- clearly the bad teams above have focused on the "combo" players while the Super Bowl teams above have put a higher premium on drafting DL. Again, I used DT versus either WR or CB, which has even more significant numbers, but using your misinterpetration of DL versus "combo" numbers, the equity used on DL among the better teams is still far higher among the better teams. Bottom line is we're a bad team for good reason- we don't draft like the good teams; vey specifically, our drafts look more like the Lions or Raiders drafts when it comes to "combo" versus DL players.
Captain Hindsight Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 The average NFL offense uses 2.75 WRs on any offensive play. I know Roscoe is small but he is a whole person
AKC Posted March 30, 2008 Author Posted March 30, 2008 I know Roscoe is small but he is a whole person I'm sure that is a toungue in cheek response, but the basis is the difference in schemes and offensive sets used on average per down.
Captain Hindsight Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 I'm sure that is a toungue in cheek response, but the basis is the difference in schemes and offensive sets used on average per down. I know man i just read that and laughed to myself picture a quarter of a person running routes
Steely Dan Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 My original post used numbers regarding DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've tried to accomodate your opinion by combining WRs and DBs to make them a single quantification, which as I've pointed out makes no sense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the game. Let me once more show you how your combining WRs and DBs as some block versus DL is bad math- An NFL defense averages using 3.5 Defensive linemen on any defensive play. An NFL defense averages using 4.3 DBs on any defensive play. An NFL offense averages using 2.75 WRs on any offensive play. Your bad math of combining the WRs and DBs when the original post in no way supports that means that you are now comparing the weight of 3.5 players on the field per respective (in this case defensive) play against a combined weight of 7.05 players on the field per respective play in team needs for the combination of WRs and DBs. You've fabricated the equation based upon your desire to support your argument, but even then the facts are not in your favor. You've added WRs and DBs to come out with a "combo" number. We know that the "combo" provides virtually twice the number of players on the field at any one time versus the DL number, but let's give your bad math a run to see how it works: We've been using the post 2000 draft picks. You've selected the first round, my original study was of the top 15 picks since we're drafting in the top half of the draft this year. But we'll use your equation instead of mine. The bottom teams: Buffalo 3 "combo" players and 1 DL Detroit 4 "combo" players and 0 DL Arizona 3 "combo" and 1 DL Raiders 5 combo and 0 DL Those are bottom feeders- bad teams with bad drafting patterns and most important, bad results. This is using your equation, not mine. How about the Super Bowl teams? Pats* 3 DL and 1 "combo" player Giants 2 DL 2 "combo" players Chicago 2 DL and 1 combo Philly 3 DL and 1 combo You are using bad math when you try to somehow claim the Giants drafting of 2 DL versus 2 combo players supports your argument (tie)- the reality is that the Giants as a 4-3 team will be using twice as many of your "combo" players on offense and defense than they will DL, meaning that they drafted twice as many DL players versus "combo" players when weighted for the total players on the field for their respective specialties. This doesn't seem that difficult to understand- if you're still struggling with it tell me what it is you don't get about the combination of DBs and WRs having double the numbers on average playing for a team in their offenses on the field at any time. Indy is an acknowledged exception with 3 combo and 1 DL, but their strength of offense is also an accepted exception to the NFL rule- occasionally a better offensive team wins a Super Bowl, but far more often it's the best defensive teams in the hunt every year. Pittsburgh has 2 combo and 1 DL, but playing in a 3-4, even that is weighted towards the DLine since they would use more than twice the combo players on the field as DL on their respective plays. So I don't know how you are coming up with those false "good teams/bad teams" statements- clearly the bad teams above have focused on the "combo" players while the Super Bowl teams above have put a higher premium on drafting DL. Again, I used DT versus either WR or CB, which has even more significant numbers, but using your misinterpetration of DL versus "combo" numbers, the equity used on DL among the better teams is still far higher among the better teams. Bottom line is we're a bad team for good reason- we don't draft like the good teams; vey specifically, our drafts look more like the Lions or Raiders drafts when it comes to "combo" versus DL players. If you know that then why do you feel DL depth behind starters is more important than starters at positions that use more players per play? The point here is that the starters on the WR and CB corps are not nearly as good as the starters on the D line the Bills have now. Saying the Bills should ignore bigger weakness' for lesser weakness' is silly. BTW, you have yet to support your argument that WR's can be found in FA. You still have to tell us what WR was available this year that Buffalo didn't sign.
dave mcbride Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 My original post used numbers regarding DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've tried to accomodate your opinion by combining WRs and DBs to make them a single quantification, which as I've pointed out makes no sense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the game. Let me once more show you how your combining WRs and DBs as some block versus DL is bad math- An NFL defense averages using 3.5 Defensive linemen on any defensive play. An NFL defense averages using 4.3 DBs on any defensive play. An NFL offense averages using 2.75 WRs on any offensive play. Your bad math of combining the WRs and DBs when the original post in no way supports that means that you are now comparing the weight of 3.5 players on the field per respective (in this case defensive) play against a combined weight of 7.05 players on the field per respective play in team needs for the combination of WRs and DBs. You've fabricated the equation based upon your desire to support your argument, but even then the facts are not in your favor. You've added WRs and DBs to come out with a "combo" number. We know that the "combo" provides virtually twice the number of players on the field at any one time versus the DL number, but let's give your bad math a run to see how it works: We've been using the post 2000 draft picks. You've selected the first round, my original study was of the top 15 picks since we're drafting in the top half of the draft this year. But we'll use your equation instead of mine. The bottom teams: Buffalo 3 "combo" players and 1 DL Detroit 4 "combo" players and 0 DL Arizona 3 "combo" and 1 DL Raiders 5 combo and 0 DL Those are bottom feeders- bad teams with bad drafting patterns and most important, bad results. This is using your equation, not mine. How about the Super Bowl teams? Pats* 3 DL and 1 "combo" player Giants 2 DL 2 "combo" players Chicago 2 DL and 1 combo Philly 3 DL and 1 combo You are using bad math when you try to somehow claim the Giants drafting of 2 DL versus 2 combo players supports your argument (tie)- the reality is that the Giants as a 4-3 team will be using twice as many of your "combo" players on offense and defense than they will DL, meaning that they drafted twice as many DL players versus "combo" players when weighted for the total players on the field for their respective specialties. This doesn't seem that difficult to understand- if you're still struggling with it tell me what it is you don't get about the combination of DBs and WRs having double the numbers on average playing for a team in their offenses on the field at any time. Indy is an acknowledged exception with 3 combo and 1 DL, but their strength of offense is also an accepted exception to the NFL rule- occasionally a better offensive team wins a Super Bowl, but far more often it's the best defensive teams in the hunt every year. Pittsburgh has 2 combo and 1 DL, but playing in a 3-4, even that is weighted towards the DLine since they would use more than twice the combo players on the field as DL on their respective plays. So I don't know how you are coming up with those false "good teams/bad teams" statements- clearly the bad teams above have focused on the "combo" players while the Super Bowl teams above have put a higher premium on drafting DL. Again, I used DT versus either WR or CB, which has even more significant numbers, but using your misinterpetration of DL versus "combo" numbers, the equity used on DL among the better teams is still far higher among the better teams. Bottom line is we're a bad team for good reason- we don't draft like the good teams; vey specifically, our drafts look more like the Lions or Raiders drafts when it comes to "combo" versus DL players. This isn't related to your point, but I've noted that you're withholding judgment on the Stroud acquisition. If it makes you feel any better, there was another 30-year old dominating DT with a few lingering injury issues (never enough to shut him down and never enough to make him anything but dominating) who, after the 2000 season, found himself unwanted by the team that he excelled for: the Buffalo Bills. The defensive personnel mastermind of the Bills then is the same person who is now running the Jaguars defense--Gregg "find me eleven Blaine Bishops and Pierson Prialeaus" Williams. Given his very high self-regard, I suspect he had a say in all of this. I think the man isn't especially intelligent, and history has proven that his spring 2001 decision to proclaim "no more fat guys" was spectacularly wrong. I suspect he'll be completely wrong again. By the way, the word on the street is that this guy the Bills picked up from Minnesota is actually pretty darn good for a rotation player.
Steely Dan Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 This isn't related to your point, but I've noted that you're withholding judgment on the Stroud acquisition. If it makes you feel any better, there was another 30-year old dominating DT with a few lingering injury issues (never enough to shut him down and never enough to make him anything but dominating) who, after the 2000 season, found himself unwanted by the team that he excelled for: the Buffalo Bills. The defensive personnel mastermind of the Bills then is the same person who is now running the Jaguars defense--Gregg "find me eleven Blaine Bishops and Pierson Prialeaus" Williams. Given his very high self-regard, I suspect he had a say in all of this. I think the man isn't especially intelligent, and history has proven that his spring 2001 decision to proclaim "no more fat guys" was spectacularly wrong. I suspect he'll be completely wrong again. By the way, the word on the street is that this guy the Bills picked up from Minnesota is actually pretty darn good for a rotation player. Don't introduce facts into this argument he can't deal with them. He'll change your words and then say your stupid for saying what you never said. I'd guess he's going to go after your talk about Spencer and ask what he's done to make you believe he can do anything and yet he's under the impression that a guy the Bills would pick couldn't possibly bust.
Dibs Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 My original post.....blah,blah,blah It's really very simple..... You keep saying..... most of the better teams in the league have used early high picks to build a strong DLine. ....and.... substantially more draft equity is going into the line positions on Defense at the top of the draft for those better teams than at WR/DB You are wrong. Better teams Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR Colts(13-3)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Cowboys(13-3)...1 DL...2 DB/WR Packers(13-3)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Chargers(11-5)...1 DL...4 DB/WR Jaguars(11-5)...2 DL...3 DB/WR Lesser teams Dolphins(1-15)...0 DL...3 DB/WR Rams(3-13)...4 DL...2 DB/WR Jets(4-12)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Raiders(4-12)...1 DL...5 DB/WR Chiefs(4-12)...2 DL...1 DB/WR Falcons(4-12)...1 DL...3 DB/WR The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!! I really don't care about any of the other aspects that you keep bringing up.....I may agree on some.....I may disagree on others. On the point you continually make that the better teams draft more DL than the worse teams(thus them being better) is the ONLY thing I have been addressing.......BECAUSE IT IS TOTALLY WRONG!
Dibs Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 My original post....... The bottom teams: Buffalo 3 "combo" players and 1 DL Detroit 4 "combo" players and 0 DL Arizona 3 "combo" and 1 DL Raiders 5 combo and 0 DL How about the Super Bowl teams? Pats* 3 DL and 1 "combo" player Giants 2 DL 2 "combo" players Chicago 2 DL and 1 combo Philly 3 DL and 1 combo I hate to resort to this but..... Either you think everyone else is an idiot or you are one yourself. I gave entire lists for analysis & you pick & chose what you want from it???? How about.... The bottom teams: Rams 2 "combo" players and 4 DL Chiefs 1 "combo" players and 2 DL Jets 2 "combo" players and 2 DL How about the Super Bowl teams? Colts 1 DL and 2 "combo" player Steelers 1 DL and 3 "combo" player Raiders 1 DL and 3 "combo" player 01 Pats 1 DL and 4 "combo" player Ravens 0 DL and 3 "combo" player 00 Giants 1 DL and 3 "combo" player
Steely Dan Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 I hate to resort to this but.....Either you think everyone else is an idiot or you are one yourself. I gave entire lists for analysis & you pick & chose what you want from it???? How about.... The bottom teams: Rams 2 "combo" players and 4 DL Chiefs 1 "combo" players and 2 DL Jets 2 "combo" players and 2 DL How about the Super Bowl teams? Colts 1 DL and 2 "combo" player Steelers 1 DL and 3 "combo" player Raiders 1 DL and 3 "combo" player 01 Pats 1 DL and 4 "combo" player Ravens 0 DL and 3 "combo" player 00 Giants 1 DL and 3 "combo" player He does think everyone is an idiot that's obvious the second part is obvious too. He thinks that by calling others idiots for not accepting his constantly changing argument he shows his intelligence when in fact it shows his foolishness.
AKC Posted March 31, 2008 Author Posted March 31, 2008 It's really very simple.....You keep saying..... ....and.... You are wrong. Better teams Giants...2 DL...2 DB/WR Patriots...3 DL...1 DB/WR Colts(13-3)...1 DL...3 DB/WR Cowboys(13-3)...1 DL...2 DB/WR Packers(13-3)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Chargers(11-5)...1 DL...4 DB/WR Jaguars(11-5)...2 DL...3 DB/WR Lesser teams Dolphins(1-15)...0 DL...3 DB/WR Rams(3-13)...4 DL...2 DB/WR Jets(4-12)...2 DL...2 DB/WR Raiders(4-12)...1 DL...5 DB/WR Chiefs(4-12)...2 DL...1 DB/WR Falcons(4-12)...1 DL...3 DB/WR The better teams are drafting DL at the top of the draft at the same rate as the bottom teams!!!! I really don't care about any of the other aspects that you keep bringing up.....I may agree on some.....I may disagree on others. On the point you continually make that the better teams draft more DL than the worse teams(thus them being better) is the ONLY thing I have been addressing.......BECAUSE IT IS TOTALLY WRONG! The original post is about trends and teams with long term success- not how they did in 2007; how they did over the stretch while we've been awful. So try very hard to focus your attention on the premise of the first post- As I said, I'll even give you the drifting that you've done from my original study of DTs versus CBs or WRs. You've expanded and combined that into "DBs and WRS vs. DL", a complete bastardization of the original. You've expanded to the complete first round instead of the top of the first round where the Bill's select this year, the measure I used. You've drifted and amended the equation to try and fit your perception, and even then your numbers don't work: There are 7.05 of your "combo" players (WR/DB) to every 3.5 DL on their respective plays. This is a ratio of over 2:1 of the players you have decided should be measured over the DL, another measure you picked in contrast to the orginal measure of DTs. So we'll use your measures, weighted for the number of those players who are on the field during their respective specialty's plays on average. That means that using your own equation, the following teams all have drafted heavier in DL than "combo" on a per player on the field average: Pats* Packers Giants Jags Philly Steelers Even Up: Cowboys More draft equity in Dib's "Combo" Players: Dolphins Raiders Bills Detroit Falcons Arizona If you can't look at the teams named above and begin to recognize that the teams in the bottom who love "combo" players in the first round wouldn't be as desirable to follow in personnel strategy versus the teams in the top who put more draft equity into their DLines , then I think we'll find agreement in one thing you say- that there's an idiot in this string! In fact, I'd go so far as to double down on that and put my money on there being a couple ;-)
Recommended Posts