Top of the Draft Positional Budgeting Trends

[AKC]

Studying the drafting trends of the way Super Bowl teams approach the Top of the Draft versus the Buffalo Bills (one of only 4 teams in the NFL to have missed the playoffs this Millennium) may offer some insight into why we’ve been one of the consistently bad teams in the league for an extended period of time.

 

Using the draft records of Super Bowl teams allows a look into how those teams have “budgeted” at specific positions at the Top of the Draft. This study does not establish whether these Positional Budgeting Trends are a conscious strategy on the part of all or any of the teams in the study, but the trends do represent contrasts between the players Super Bowl teams target at the Top of the Draft versus the positions the Buffalo Bills have been drafting.

 

The methodology used for the study follows the primary trending results.

 

A comparison of Super Bowl Draft Budgets versus the Bills looks like this:

 

Super Bowl Teams: Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats*, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers:

 

% of Draft Top of the Budget by Position:

 

Super Bowl Teams

 

DL 23%

DB 21%

WR 14%

OL 12%

TE 9%

RB 8%

LB 7%

QB 6%

 

Bills

 

DL 16%

DB 20%

WR 18%

OL 12%

TE 0%

RB 20%

LB 6%

QB 8%

 

A few substantial differences in tendencies:

 

Buffalo has used 59% of its draft budget in the study period for Offensive players, while the Super Bowl Team Draft Budgets favor Defensive selections more often than Offensive.

 

Buffalo has “outspent” the Super Bowl teams at RB and WR while “under spending” them at TE and DL.

 

This makes the following areas those in which Buffalo most widely bucks the Top of the Draft Trends of Super Bowl teams:

 

A) Bills have a higher Top of the Draft spend on Offense than Defense, contrary to the trend with Super Bowl teams

B) Bills have no TE selection at the top, whereas all but one Super Bowl team has spent a portion of their Top of the Draft Budget on the position.

C) Bills have spent a higher ratio of their budget on WRs versus DL, bucking the Super Bowl team trend of loading up on DL at the Top of the Draft

 

Every Super Bowl team except the Seahawks has a higher DL spend than they do at WR. The DL/WR ratio favoring the DL is common among 87.5% of the Super Bowl Teams. Buffalo is already out of balance on this trend, and a selection of a WR with the #11 pick this season would put us at a nearly 1:2 DL/WR ratio, a stark contrast to the almost 2:1 ratio favored by the Super Bowl Teams on average. (The ratio favoring DL over WRs is also a trait of recent playoff teams like the Cowboys, the Chargers and the Packers).

 

Every Super Bowl Team except the Panthers has a Top of the Draft investment in the TE position except the Carolina Panthers. The Bills have none.

 

Super Bowl teams are spending over 23%- or almost a quarter of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%.

 

 

In order to compile usable information for the study, the following reasonable stipulations were adopted in order to establish a study group and time window:

1) Top of the Draft- This is represented by the first two rounds. The players selected in these two rounds represent the prospects that NFL teams have concluded are the best talent entering the league from college each season.

2) Draft Budgeting- To establish a position by position numerical score for each team, the study uses the sum of the specific draft choices in which each team selected players at each position during those first two rounds. In order to end up with a highest to lowest sum, the selections were counted inversely. Since there are 32 team picks in each round each of the first 64 picks is assigned the inverse of its position, with draft pick #1 being given a numerical score of 64 points, draft pick #2 counting for 63, etc.

3) Compensatory picks- Compensatory picks following the 64th pick of the draft were counted as 1 point in each case.

4) In establishing a window to study successful draft budgeting, the average number of years first round draft picks average playing for their original team (6-7) was used. The past 7 drafts were those considered.

5) “Super Bowl Teams” will be NFL teams who have won their Conference Championships over the past 5 seasons. This allows the Super Bowl rosters to have two mature draft classes entering the study and limits teams declining from bad contemporary drafting over the study window like the Super Bowl Raiders following the 2002 NFL Season.

6) Positions- Positions are defined by: DL, DB, WR, OL, TE, RB, LB and QB.

7) Percentages- Percentages are carried to the closest whole number.

[K-9]

Studying the drafting trends of the way Super Bowl teams approach the Top of the Draft versus the Buffalo Bills (one of only 4 teams in the NFL to have missed the playoffs this Millennium) may offer some insight into why we’ve been one of the consistently bad teams in the league for an extended period of time.

 

Using the draft records of Super Bowl teams allows a look into how those teams have “budgeted” at specific positions at the Top of the Draft. This study does not establish whether these Positional Budgeting Trends are a conscious strategy on the part of all or any of the teams in the study, but the trends do represent contrasts between the players Super Bowl teams target at the Top of the Draft versus the positions the Buffalo Bills have been drafting.

 

The methodology used for the study follows the primary trending results.

 

A comparison of Super Bowl Draft Budgets versus the Bills looks like this:

 

Super Bowl Teams: Giants, Colts, Steelers, Pats*, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers:

 

% of Draft Top of the Budget by Position:

 

Super Bowl Teams

 

DL 23%

DB 21%

WR 14%

OL 12%

TE 9%

RB 8%

LB 7%

QB 6%

 

Bills

 

DL 16%

DB 20%

WR 18%

OL 12%

TE 0%

RB 20%

LB 6%

QB 8%

 

A few substantial differences in tendencies:

 

Buffalo has used 59% of its draft budget in the study period for Offensive players, while the Super Bowl Team Draft Budgets favor Defensive selections more often than Offensive.

 

Buffalo has “outspent” the Super Bowl teams at RB and WR while “under spending” them at TE and DL.

 

This makes the following areas those in which Buffalo most widely bucks the Top of the Draft Trends of Super Bowl teams:

 

A) Bills have a higher Top of the Draft spend on Offense than Defense, contrary to the trend with Super Bowl teams

B) Bills have no TE selection at the top, whereas all but one Super Bowl team has spent a portion of their Top of the Draft Budget on the position.

C) Bills have spent a higher ratio of their budget on WRs versus DL, bucking the Super Bowl team trend of loading up on DL at the Top of the Draft

 

Every Super Bowl team except the Seahawks has a higher DL spend than they do at WR. The DL/WR ratio favoring the DL is common among 87.5% of the Super Bowl Teams. Buffalo is already out of balance on this trend, and a selection of a WR with the #11 pick this season would put us at a nearly 1:2 DL/WR ratio, a stark contrast to the almost 2:1 ratio favored by the Super Bowl Teams on average. (The ratio favoring DL over WRs is also a trait of recent playoff teams like the Cowboys, the Chargers and the Packers).

 

Every Super Bowl Team except the Panthers has a Top of the Draft investment in the TE position except the Carolina Panthers. The Bills have none.

 

Super Bowl teams are spending over 23%- or almost a quarter of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%.

 

 

In order to compile usable information for the study, the following reasonable stipulations were adopted in order to establish a study group and time window:

1) Top of the Draft- This is represented by the first two rounds. The players selected in these two rounds represent the prospects that NFL teams have concluded are the best talent entering the league from college each season.

2) Draft Budgeting- To establish a position by position numerical score for each team, the study uses the sum of the specific draft choices in which each team selected players at each position during those first two rounds. In order to end up with a highest to lowest sum, the selections were counted inversely. Since there are 32 team picks in each round each of the first 64 picks is assigned the inverse of its position, with draft pick #1 being given a numerical score of 64 points, draft pick #2 counting for 63, etc.

3) Compensatory picks- Compensatory picks following the 64th pick of the draft were counted as 1 point in each case.

4) In establishing a window to study successful draft budgeting, the average number of years first round draft picks average playing for their original team (6-7) was used. The past 7 drafts were those considered.

5) “Super Bowl Teams” will be NFL teams who have won their Conference Championships over the past 5 seasons. This allows the Super Bowl rosters to have two mature draft classes entering the study and limits teams declining from bad contemporary drafting over the study window like the Super Bowl Raiders following the 2002 NFL Season.

6) Positions- Positions are defined by: DL, DB, WR, OL, TE, RB, LB and QB.

7) Percentages- Percentages are carried to the closest whole number.

 

Very interesting and thanks for the hard work and analysis. But it STILL comes down to those teams finding better football players, regardless of their draft investments. I wonder if there is any correlation between positional investments vs. player success? In other words, are DLmen more apt to become good NFL players vs. TEs for instance.

 

As you certainly know and can appreciate, there are a host of other factors not addressed relative to the success of the SB teams listed but those are better saved for a different thread.

 

Thanks again for some thought provoking material.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[BuckeyeBill]

Many of the Superbowl teams get their wide receivers via Free Agency (Moss, Welker, Burress, Muhammed, Owens) and the Bills draft theirs (Evans, Reed, Parrish). On the contrary, the Bills spent heavily on Defensive Line in Free Agency and trades, and plan to draft their wide-receiver.

 

As long as the team gets the talent and the appropriate positions it doesn't matter if it is through the draft or via free agency. I see the Bills having a quality front for the first time since we had Adams and Williams side by side.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Many of the Superbowl teams get their wide receivers via Free Agency (Moss, Welker, Burress, Muhammed, Owens) and the Bills draft theirs (Evans, Reed, Parrish). On the contrary, the Bills spent heavily on Defensive Line in Free Agency and trades, and plan to draft their wide-receiver.

 

As long as the team gets the talent and the appropriate positions it doesn't matter if it is through the draft or via free agency. I see the Bills having a quality front for the first time since we had Adams and Williams side by side.

Tampa Bay Superbowl team consisted of....... Keyshawn Johnson:Traded for- two #1's (OUCH) Joe Juravicous: Free Agent Keenan McCardell: Free Agent

[Lurker]

Buffalo has used 59% of its draft budget in the study period for Offensive players, while the Super Bowl Team Draft Budgets favor Defensive selections more often than Offensive.

 

Many of those SB teams have a franchise QB and RB, while Buffalo's been trying to fill those positions for the past five years. The Bledsoe, Losman and McGahee misses are a big part of this.

 

 

Super Bowl teams are spending over 23%- or almost a quarter of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%.

 

If the Bills had drafted Ngata, what would this have done to their budget allocation?

[Ramius]

Yawn. Another drawn out post thats full of bluster but ultimately shows nothing. Interesting that you choose to lump "super bowl teams" into 1 category without breaking down how each team does it.

 

I'm wondering where Indy fits into all of this, because their 1st round picks since 2001 have been : WR-DE-TE-D-CB-RB-WR. Doesnt exactly fit into your little percentages now does it. They have a 2:1 WR:DL ratio, so by your standards, they should be going 4-12 every season. Also, i'm interested to see if you included their 2nd round pick of larry tripplett in your little "study." Becuase you are quite fond of trashing tripplett's horrible play when he was on the Bills.

 

And then there's pittsburgh, who has spent 9 of their last 18 1st and 2nd round picks on WRs and DBs. In that same span, they've spent all of 2 picks on the DL.

 

And finally, you;ve yet to explain how the Buffalo Bills, who have drafted 1 WR (at #13) in round 1 since 1996, are the equivalent of the detroit lions, who have drafted 4 WRs with top-10 picks in the last 5 years.

 

 

EDIT: with regards to the bills, going back to 2001, we have spent 1st and 2nd rounders on WR Lee Evans, WR Josh Reed, and WR Roscoe Parrish. In that same span, we have drafted DE Aaron Schobel, DE Ryan Denney, DE Chris Kelsay, and DT John McCargo. So, i ask, how exactly have the Bills spent a larger portion of top picks on WR than DL when we have drafted more DL in the same timespan?

[AKC]

Yawn. Another drawn out post thats full of bluster but ultimately shows nothing. Your credibility is completely undermined, as you fail to define any standards, such as what consists of the "top of the draft" and how far back you've gone into draft history for each team. Interesting too that you choose to lump "super bowl teams" into 1 category without breaking down how each team does it.

 

b]

 

The methodolgy is fully broken down. A 5th grade math student could follow it. I recognize it doesn't fit your fantasies about what teams do early, but these are the facts based upon a mathematical study framed in what I believe to be the most reasonable time frame for determining what Buffalo and Detroit are doing in the draft while the best teams stay on top (last 7 drafts, last 5 playoff years).

 

Indy has a cumulative score of 68 at the WR position over the past 7 drafts, and a cumulative score of 77 at DL. That means their ratio of DL to WR fits the winning model of 88% of the Super Bowl teams over the past 5 years.

 

As to how each team does it, the formula's in a spreadsheet that won't take to well to this format but you asked for it-

 

Giants Colts Steelers Patriots*

 

DL 82 0.21 DL 77 0.24 DL 46 0.11 DL 157 0.35

DB 110 0.28 DB 76 0.24 DB 76 0.19 DB 70 0.16

WR 54 0.14 WR 68 0.21 WR 43 0.11 WR 50 0.11

TE 51 0.13 TE 41 0.13 TE 35 0.09 TE 77 0.17

LB 0.00 LB 0.00 LB 114 0.28 LB 0.00

OL 31 0.08 OL 23 0.07 OL 35 0.09 OL 50 0.11

RB 0.00 RB 35 0.11 RB 0.00 RB 44 0.10

QB 61 0.16 QB 0.00 QB 54 0.13 QB 0.00

 

Total 389 320 403 448

 

 

 

Bears Seahawks Eagles Panthers

 

DL 123 0.26 DL 49 0.13 DL 143 0.37 DL 84 0.19

DB 61 0.13 DB 123 0.32 DB 52 0.14 DB 95 0.21

WR 83 0.18 WR 56 0.15 WR 70 0.18 WR 23 0.05

TE 34 0.07 TE 37 0.10 TE 4 0.01 TE 0.00

LB 0.00 LB 20 0.05 LB 12 0.03 LB 94 0.21

OL 36 0.08 OL 87 0.23 OL 75 0.19 OL 72 0.16

RB 88 0.19 RB 11 0.03 RB 0.00 RB 80 0.18

QB 43 0.09 QB 0.00 QB 29 0.08 QB 0.00

 

468 383 385 448

 

Becuase you are quite fond of trashing tripplett's horrible play when he was on the Bills.

Just because you've gotten your panties in a bunch as the leader of the "Draft the new Josh Reed at 11" Bandwagon doesn't mean you should be lying about other poster's history.

[Ramius]

The methodolgy is fully broken down. A 5th grade math student could follow it. I recognize it doesn't fit your fantasies about what teams do early, but these are the facts based upon a mathematical study framed in what I believe to be the most reasonable time frame for determining what Buffalo and Detroit are doing in the draft while the best teams stay on top (last 7 drafts, last 5 playoff years).

 

Indy has a cumulative score of 68 at the WR position over the past 7 drafts, and a cumulative score of 77 at DL. That means their ratio of DL to WR fits the winning model of 88% of the Super Bowl teams over the past 5 years.

 

As to how each team does it, the formula's in a spreadsheet that won't take to well to this format but you asked for it-

 

Giants Colts Steelers Patriots*

 

DL 82 0.21 DL 77 0.24 DL 46 0.11 DL 157 0.35

DB 110 0.28 DB 76 0.24 DB 76 0.19 DB 70 0.16

WR 54 0.14 WR 68 0.21 WR 43 0.11 WR 50 0.11

TE 51 0.13 TE 41 0.13 TE 35 0.09 TE 77 0.17

LB 0.00 LB 0.00 LB 114 0.28 LB 0.00

OL 31 0.08 OL 23 0.07 OL 35 0.09 OL 50 0.11

RB 0.00 RB 35 0.11 RB 0.00 RB 44 0.10

QB 61 0.16 QB 0.00 QB 54 0.13 QB 0.00

 

Total 389 320 403 448

 

 

 

Bears Seahawks Eagles Panthers

 

DL 123 0.26 DL 49 0.13 DL 143 0.37 DL 84 0.19

DB 61 0.13 DB 123 0.32 DB 52 0.14 DB 95 0.21

WR 83 0.18 WR 56 0.15 WR 70 0.18 WR 23 0.05

TE 34 0.07 TE 37 0.10 TE 4 0.01 TE 0.00

LB 0.00 LB 20 0.05 LB 12 0.03 LB 94 0.21

OL 36 0.08 OL 87 0.23 OL 75 0.19 OL 72 0.16

RB 88 0.19 RB 11 0.03 RB 0.00 RB 80 0.18

QB 43 0.09 QB 0.00 QB 29 0.08 QB 0.00

 

468 383 385 448

 

 

Just because you've gotten your panties in a bunch as the leader of the "Draft the new Josh Reed at 11" Bandwagon doesn't mean you should be lying about other poster's history.

 

No matter what you say, you're still cherry picking data and massaging the numbers to make your point on something that is impossible to prove as statistically valid.

[AKC]

No matter what you say, you're still cherry picking data and massaging the numbers to make your point on something that is impossible to prove as statistically valid.

 

I picked the past 7 draft seasons- because I'm actually trying to see how the best teams today stay at the top.

 

Tell me what the "non-cherry picker" studies- the 1964 draft? Only the 2003? What in the world is "Cherry Picking" about the most pertinent (last 7) drafts in determining how good teams today got there?

 

OK, you have no answer for that.

 

I took the first two rounds. Tell me what the "non-cherry picker" goes for here- do you study the 3rd and 6th? No, I studied the top of the draft and clearly defined it in my methodology and title- but you'll have no answer for that either.

 

Cherry picking- I'll take that to mean you have virtually no way to respond to the fact that all your whining for the Bill's top reach for a WR is something that the numbers prove is something far less likely to happen to a good team than a bad one. The numbers don't lie.

[Ramius]

I picked the past 7 draft seasons- because I'm actually trying to see how the best teams today stay at the top.

 

Tell me what the "non-cherry picker" studies- the 1964 draft? Only the 2003? What in the world is "Cherry Picking" about the most pertinent (last 7) drafts in determining how good teams today got there?

 

OK, you have no answer for that.

 

I took the first two rounds. Tell me what the "non-cherry picker" goes for here- do you study the 3rd and 6th? No, I studied the top of the draft and clearly defined it in my methodology and title- but you'll have no answer for that either.

 

Cherry picking- I'll take that to mean you have virtually no way to respond to the fact that all your whining for the Bill's top reach for a WR is something that the numbers prove is something far less likely to happen to a good team than a bad one. The numbers don't lie.

 

Show the numbers for the entire league. Show league averages. Because the super bowl winning teams %'s means nothing if they are statistically similar to the league average or to some of the bottom teams.

[Captain Hindsight]

Alot of it has to do with good drafting. We shouldnt draft a defensive end because the giants did.... we should draft the player that will help our team the most

[obie_wan]

Yawn. Another drawn out post thats full of bluster but ultimately shows nothing. Interesting that you choose to lump "super bowl teams" into 1 category without breaking down how each team does it.

 

I'm wondering where Indy fits into all of this, because their 1st round picks since 2001 have been : WR-DE-TE-D-CB-RB-WR. Doesnt exactly fit into your little percentages now does it. They have a 2:1 WR:DL ratio, so by your standards, they should be going 4-12 every season. Also, i'm interested to see if you included their 2nd round pick of larry tripplett in your little "study." Becuase you are quite fond of trashing tripplett's horrible play when he was on the Bills.

 

And then there's pittsburgh, who has spent 9 of their last 18 1st and 2nd round picks on WRs and DBs. In that same span, they've spent all of 2 picks on the DL.

 

And finally, you;ve yet to explain how the Buffalo Bills, who have drafted 1 WR (at #13) in round 1 since 1996, are the equivalent of the detroit lions, who have drafted 4 WRs with top-10 picks in the last 5 years.

 

 

EDIT: with regards to the bills, going back to 2001, we have spent 1st and 2nd rounders on WR Lee Evans, WR Josh Reed, and WR Roscoe Parrish. In that same span, we have drafted DE Aaron Schobel, DE Ryan Denney, DE Chris Kelsay, and DT John McCargo. So, i ask, how exactly have the Bills spent a larger portion of top picks on WR than DL when we have drafted more DL in the same timespan?

 

The big differnce is when the Colts draft a WR high, that player produces on the field. The Bills have wasted 2nd round picks on WRs that are not starter quality - which is why they will probably blow another high pick on an overrated WR that will again under-perform on the field.

[Ramius]

The big differnce is when the Colts draft a WR high, that player produces on the field. The Bills have wasted 2nd round picks on WRs that are not starter quality - which is why they will probably blow another high pick on an overrated WR that will again under-perform on the field.

 

thank you for proving the point that its not the position you draft, but whether or not the player is a quality player. If you draft good, regardless of what position you draft, you are going to be a good team.

[lets_go_bills]

While I applaud your hard work and statistical analysis, your findings are not difinitive enough to draw any logical conclusions.

 

Yes, the differences for the DL and RB spots could be used to establish a correlation between drafting and success, but your data does not take into account free agent losses and signings.

 

But it is my belief that you build a winner through the draft, and not free agency.

 

Good work, nontheless.

[AKC]

Show the numbers for the entire league. Show league averages. Because the super bowl winning teams %'s means nothing if they are statistically similar to the league average or to some of the bottom teams.

 

Go ahead and put your own time in- for me, my interest runs into why the good teams draft better than the Bills. I not inclined to put more time in proving how Atlanta and Cleveland approach it.

 

If you want to nominate someone who hasn't joined your "Draft The Next Koren Robinson" campaign, I'll be happy to forward the spreadsheet with formulas intact and they can do the balance of the league. The numbers I've seen so far suggest it will just continue to confirm that the best teams draft D over O, and DL over WR.

[Ramius]

Go ahead and put your own time in- for me, my interest runs into why the good teams draft better than the Bills. I not inclined to put more time in proving how Atlanta and Cleveland approach it.

 

If you want to nominate someone who hasn't joined your "Draft The Next Koren Robinson" campaign, I'll be happy to forward the spreadsheet with formulas intact and they can do the balance of the league. The numbers I've seen so far suggest it will just continue to confirm that the best teams draft D over O, and DL over WR.

 

so, you admit that your analysis is basically worthless, because you have no control to compare it to. Without the league average, and the tendencies of the rest of the teams, there is no definitive conclusion that can be reached. Anyone that has done any statistical work will agree.

[Fingon]

Go ahead and put your own time in- for me, my interest runs into why the good teams draft better than the Bills. I not inclined to put more time in proving how Atlanta and Cleveland approach it.

 

If you want to nominate someone who hasn't joined your "Draft The Next Koren Robinson" campaign, I'll be happy to forward the spreadsheet with formulas intact and they can do the balance of the league. The numbers I've seen so far suggest it will just continue to confirm that the best teams draft D over O, and DL over WR.

So, basically, you chose data only on super bowl winners to make your argument look good? What if the league average is around 20% DL? Then it all comes down to finding GOOD PLAYERS

 

 

 

Until you do this, your analysis is meaningless.

[AKC]

so, you admit that your analysis is basically worthless, because you have no control to compare it to. Without the league average, and the tendencies of the rest of the teams, there is no definitive conclusion that can be reached. Anyone that has done any statistical work will agree.

 

What's worthless is the opinions of those who have staked their children's lives on the Bill's drafting a bad WR with the 11 pick this year. Others are able to see that the trends among the Super Bowl Teams of recent years for the past 7 drafts favor D over O and DL over WR- and that's by a huge margin.

 

Now if you want to talk about the guys who love WRs, there's Detroit- you want their numbers?

[Fingon]

What's worthless is the opinions of those who have staked their children's lives on the Bill's drafting a bad WR with the 11 pick this year. Others are able to see that the trends among the Super Bowl Teams of recent years for the past 7 drafts favor D over O and DL over WR- and that's by a huge margin.

 

Now if you want to talk about the guys who love WRs, there's Detroit- you want their numbers?

And what would be the difference if we went WR at 11 and DE in the 2nd round, or possibly trading back into the 1st? This is a deep draft for DE's.

[Ramius]

What's worthless is the opinions of those who have staked their children's lives on the Bill's drafting a bad WR with the 11 pick this year. Others are able to see that the trends among the Super Bowl Teams of recent years for the past 7 drafts favor D over O and DL over WR- and that's by a huge margin.

 

Now if you want to talk about the guys who love WRs, there's Detroit- you want their numbers?

 

As the above few posters have said, until you compare the top teams to the rest of the league, your "analysis" carries no weight at all.

 

Whats really amusing is how you insist that no WRs in this draft will be good. And, for the record, the Bills dont need to draft a WR at #11. We could go CB at 11 and grab a WR in round 2. The point is, if we draft a WR at #11, we are NOT doomed to go 4-12, and it isnt the end of the world. It will be an upgrade to the offense.