Huuuge Bills Posted April 24, 2008 Posted April 24, 2008 You've inspired me....Here are 1st/2nd/3rd DLmen choices for all teams over the last 8 drafts......10-6 records or better in bold.....5-11 records or worse in red. Vikings 4/2/0 Eagles 4/1/3 Rams 4/0/2 Marc Bulger (although injured most of the year) Texans 4/0/1 Saints 3/1/1 Patriots 3/1/0 Tom Brady Cowboys 3/0/1 Tony Romo Jets 3/0/0 Chad Pennington Chiefs 2/3/2 Brodie Croyle ***Bills 2/3/2*** Ravens 2/3/0 Kyle Boller Cardinals 2/2/3 Giants 2/2/2 Eli Manning Bears 2/2/1 Packers 2/0/3 Brett Favre Bengals 2/0/1 Browns 2/0/0 Derek Anderson Jaguars 2/0/0 David Garrard Broncos 1/2/2 Titans 1/2/2 Vince Young 49ers 1/2/1 Alex Smith Steelers 1/2/1 Ben Roethlesburger Colts 1/2/1 Peyton Manning Seahawks 1/2/1 Matt Hasslebeck Panthers 1/1/2 Falcons 1/1/1 Mike Vick Buccaneers 1/1/0 Chargers 1/1/0 Philip Rivers Raiders 1/0/2 Jamarcus Russel Lions 0/4/1 Dolphins 0/1/0 Anthony Beck Redskins 0/0/0 I conclusively conclude that any conclusion is inconclusive. Could it be that having a franchise QB has something to do with not sucking? And that no matter what your philosophy is (drafting offense/ drafting defense), that whether you win or lose begins at that position?
Dibs Posted April 24, 2008 Posted April 24, 2008 Could it be that having a franchise QB has something to do with not sucking? And that no matter what your philosophy is (drafting offense/ drafting defense), that whether you win or lose begins at that position? There's always exceptions but.....you're preaching to the converted there my friend.
Trader Posted April 24, 2008 Posted April 24, 2008 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.
AKC Posted April 24, 2008 Author Posted April 24, 2008 Nice work !!! best post I have seen in weeks. It's always good to have other fans joining us who are interested in exploring and expanding the information available to improve our understanding of the factors influencing the W/L record of the Bills. The more I consider that 20% difference in the Offensive/Defensive investments of the Bills (offense first) versus the best teams (defense first), the more significant it appears.
Orton's Arm Posted April 24, 2008 Posted April 24, 2008 The more I consider that 20% difference in the Offensive/Defensive investments of the Bills (offense first) versus the best teams (defense first), the more significant it appears. When you build a good offensive unit, it can often remain effective for many years. You get a QB who's used to throwing to a particular group of receivers, you get an offensive line with the same five guys year after year, you keep the same offensive coordinator/philosophy in place, and suddenly you start to develop some chemistry and effectiveness. It could be that good teams built their offense early, and their defense later on. Take the Colts. They used first round picks on Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Tarik Glenn, Edgerrin James, Anthony Gonzalez, and Joseph Addai. But a lot of those picks were from a while ago; whereas many of the Colts' defenders were taken more recently. On one side of the ball, you have Peyton Manning throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne (all first round picks taken on or before 2001), and on the other side of the ball, you have Dwight Freeney rushing the passer, Mike Doss and Bob Sanders playing safety, Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, and Tim Jennings in the secondary (all first and second round picks taken in or after 2002). Typically, Super Bowl winners are very strong on both sides of the ball. Moreover, you almost never see a core group of players reach multiple Super Bowls unless there's a QB playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Team: '70s Steelers QB: Terry Bradshaw (played like a Hall of Famer in the postseason, although not in the regular season) Team: '80s 49ers QB: Joe Montana Team: '80s Broncoes QB: John Elway Team: early '90s Bills QB: Jim Kelly Team: '90s Cowboys QB: Troy Aikman Team: '90s Broncoes QB: John Elway Team: 2000s Patr*ots QB: Tom Brady If you need a QB like that to reach multiple Super Bowls--and the record indicates that you do--it stands to reason that you should surround said QB with the supporting cast he needs to be effective. It's hard for a QB to complete passes when he's lying on his back; or when his receivers drop passes they should have caught. The above teams generally provided a very good supporting cast for their QBs.
AKC Posted May 12, 2008 Author Posted May 12, 2008 For reference purpose only. Excellent call. Showing WRamius attacking this study that uses a weighting by draft pick and position versus his idiotic "any DB taken in the first 3 rounds is of the same value" post offers a good contrast to how serious we should take people on this board when it comes to football issues. I'm still waiting for WRamius to provide us that list of all the 1st round WRs taken in the 2008 Draft!
Adam Posted May 12, 2008 Posted May 12, 2008 I say the blown draft picks on QB's and bust of Mike Williams set us back horrendously. We might never recover completely
Recommended Posts