Ramius Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 What a load of drivel- two DBs drafted within 3 picks of each other and your "study" makes one as important as the first pick in the draft and the other inconsequential. I bet the jets are happy they drafted Dorsey Glenn, huh? Keep it up with the immature fist pounding fit, the rest of us are enjoying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I bet the jets are happy they drafted Dorsey Glenn, huh? I'm waiting for that long list of first-round WRs you insisted we'd see taken off the board in the 2008 draft- Feel free to go ahead and list them here for everyone's amusement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 I'm waiting for that long list of first-round WRs you insisted we'd see taken off the board in the 2008 draft- Feel free to go ahead and list them here for everyone's amusement! My statement was that a handful of WRs would be selected in rounds 1 AND 2 of the 2008 NFL draft. True or false. 10 WRs were selected between the 1st and 2nd rounds of the 2008 NFL draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 No kidding! What our friend doesn't realize it that it's not about his intelligence or his ability to crunch numbers. It's about being a condescending, arrogant, whiny little B word and how funny it is to watch the act play itself out. Its more of a shame that AKC has to ruin a good discussion with his extremely childish antics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 My statement was that a handful of WRs would be selected in rounds 1 AND 2 of the 2008 NFL draft. True or false. 10 WRs were selected between the 1st and 2nd rounds of the 2008 NFL draft. I sat through a full month of you whining about the Bills taking a WR at the 11 spot. I pointed out that only a bad team in the 2008 draft would take a WR that high, and you whinnied on about how the Bills had to draft a WR for need. Now you try to hide your inability to grasp how the better teams approach the draft with another "reach"- your nonsense about 2nd round WRs. But it just doesn't pass the stink test: On April 23rd you were still advocating wasting the 11 pick in the draft on a WR: "The Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around. Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" WRamius The league drafted consistent with the good evidence I provided and not one team followed your naive insistence on wasting their first round pick on a WR. Some people might learn something after being so publicly proven wrong about the top of the draft, but your history of attacking other posters intelligence doesn't allow you to simply learn from your very public mistake- it forces you into an indefensible position. Now you bring in a nonsense "study" that is so flawed in it's methodology that it tells none of us anything- but it is consistent with your desire not to learn about the workings of the NFL but to simpy increase your post total with drivel and nonsense. ruin a good discussion I guess if you considered the fishing trip in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest a "good discussion" ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 I'm waiting for that long list of first-round WRs you insisted we'd see taken off the board in the 2008 draft- Feel free to go ahead and list them here for everyone's amusement! I'm waiting for you to resolve your "edicts" against the performance of the Texans on the field and in the win column. Don't like that? Go ahead and use Ramius's examples: Chiefs and Rams. Or, are you gonna keep ducking me? (just playin') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 13, 2008 Author Share Posted May 13, 2008 I'm waiting for you to resolve your "edicts" against the performance of the Texans on the field and in the win column. Don't like that? Go ahead and use Ramius's examples: Chiefs and Rams. Or, are you gonna keep ducking me? (just playin') You'll get the standard canned AKC response in that he wasnt interested in how the bad teams draft, only the good teams. According to AKC, the good teams draft only DL, and the bad teams that draft only DL (like the rams, texans, chiefs) dont count because he isnt concerned with the bad teams since they dont fit his ridiculous rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I'm waiting for you to resolve your "edicts" against the performance of the Texans on the field and in the win column. Don't like that? Go ahead and use Ramius's examples: Chiefs and Rams. Or, are you gonna keep ducking me? (just playin') I performed a study of the positional drafting of the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills in order to see if there were clear patterns that differentiated the Bills from the draft strategy's of the best teams. WRamius couldn't process the fact that the best teams place a much higher priority at the top of the draft on defensive players and specifically DL when compared to the Bills. This didn't fit all his pre-draft insistence on a WR at 11, which I tried to explain to him was not a good football move in the 2008 draft. Instead of considering the evidence done with a weighting for where the each position is actually taken (the only way to get information of value in assessing segments of the draft), WRamius somehow drifted off to making demands about the whole NFL or the Chiefs, etc. The Chiefs have been in the playoffs three times since the Bills have last appeared, but he somehow finds the need to positions them as some kind of bad example. I didn't include them in my study because I simply don't care what mistakes they do or don't make- I wanted to see how the Bills differ against the best teams in the league. My study shows that. If you recognized before the draft that there was overwhelming evidence that no WR was going to be taken in the top of the draft- at least not by any good football organization, you might further clarify that trend by looking at my study. On the other hand, if you cornered yourself like WRamius did before the draft on how great an idea a #11 WR would be, you have to try to find some innocuous way to cover up your embarrassment. I don't know whether you were screaming like he was for a #11 WR, but if you'd like to see some of the evidence showing the best teams shying away from WRs at the top, take a look at my study. If you got caught up in bad judgment like WRamius, maybe some foolishness like his rating the first 99 picks as pick of "great expected value" and pick 100 on of little or no value, mine won't be of any interest to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 14, 2008 Author Share Posted May 14, 2008 I performed a study of the positional drafting of the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills in order to see if there were clear patterns that differentiated the Bills from the draft strategy's of the best teams. WRamius couldn't process the fact that the best teams place a much higher priority at the top of the draft on defensive players and specifically DL when compared to the Bills. This didn't fit all his pre-draft insistence on a WR at 11, which I tried to explain to him was not a good football move in the 2008 draft. Instead of considering the evidence done with a weighting for where the each position is actually taken (the only way to get information of value in assessing segments of the draft), WRamius somehow drifted off to making demands about the whole NFL or the Chiefs, etc. The Chiefs have been in the playoffs three times since the Bills have last appeared, but he somehow finds the need to positions them as some kind of bad example. I didn't include them in my study because I simply don't care what mistakes they do or don't make- I wanted to see how the Bills differ against the best teams in the league. My study shows that. If you recognized before the draft that there was overwhelming evidence that no WR was going to be taken in the top of the draft- at least not by any good football organization, you might further clarify that trend by looking at my study. On the other hand, if you cornered yourself like WRamius did before the draft on how great an idea a #11 WR would be, you have to try to find some innocuous way to cover up your embarrassment. I don't know whether you were screaming like he was for a #11 WR, but if you'd like to see some of the evidence showing the best teams shying away from WRs at the top, take a look at my study. If you got caught up in bad judgment like WRamius, maybe some foolishness like his rating the first 99 picks as pick of "great expected value" and pick 100 on of little or no value, mine won't be of any interest to you. IF you were smart, you would stop showing your complete lack of knowledge on statistics and correlation/causation with every post. Its downright embarrassing. As you've been told many times before, shouting the same drivel over and over 1000 times doesnt make it any less wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse89 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 For someone who supposedly knows so much about the NFL, i'm shocked that you didnt realize that FS Thomas DeCoud was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons. Nowhere in this draft was any Decoud Thomas drafted by the Redskins. I have to admit something however. I find it highly amusing watching you throw a hissy fit like a 6 year old girl in this thread. Oh I enjoy it as well lol, Nice work researching that stuff, very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse89 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 What a load of drivel- two DBs drafted within 3 picks of each other and your "study" makes one as important as the first pick in the draft and the other inconsequential. dude give it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse89 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I'm waiting for that long list of first-round WRs you insisted we'd see taken off the board in the 2008 draft- Feel free to go ahead and list them here for everyone's amusement! And it starts to sink in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse89 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I performed a study of the positional drafting of the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills in order to see if there were clear patterns that differentiated the Bills from the draft strategy's of the best teams. WRamius couldn't process the fact that the best teams place a much higher priority at the top of the draft on defensive players and specifically DL when compared to the Bills. This didn't fit all his pre-draft insistence on a WR at 11, which I tried to explain to him was not a good football move in the 2008 draft. Instead of considering the evidence done with a weighting for where the each position is actually taken (the only way to get information of value in assessing segments of the draft), WRamius somehow drifted off to making demands about the whole NFL or the Chiefs, etc. The Chiefs have been in the playoffs three times since the Bills have last appeared, but he somehow finds the need to positions them as some kind of bad example. I didn't include them in my study because I simply don't care what mistakes they do or don't make- I wanted to see how the Bills differ against the best teams in the league. My study shows that. If you recognized before the draft that there was overwhelming evidence that no WR was going to be taken in the top of the draft- at least not by any good football organization, you might further clarify that trend by looking at my study. On the other hand, if you cornered yourself like WRamius did before the draft on how great an idea a #11 WR would be, you have to try to find some innocuous way to cover up your embarrassment. I don't know whether you were screaming like he was for a #11 WR, but if you'd like to see some of the evidence showing the best teams shying away from WRs at the top, take a look at my study. If you got caught up in bad judgment like WRamius, maybe some foolishness like his rating the first 99 picks as pick of "great expected value" and pick 100 on of little or no value, mine won't be of any interest to you. Is that supposed to be witty, because it's not funny at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 If you're questioning my methodology, in case i didnt explain well enough it above, here it is: I think its a fair assumption that most teams reasonably expect 1st-3rd round picks to be significant contributors for the team for a while. It could be a star, a starter, or a really solid backup. But i'd venture a guess that most teams expect draftees from rounds 1-3 to be on the team for the long term. In rounds 4-7, there cant be that expectation. So thats why i set the bar where i did. I took a look at DBs that can be reasonably expected to contribute to a team and their success. Nowhere do i say or imply that a 1st round pick is equal in value to a 3rd or 4th round pick. I am however, stating that both 1st and 3rd rounds picks can be expected to contribute. Amazing you have to keep repeating yourself. For anyone to accept your "methodology", they'd have to agree that Defensive Back DeCoud Thomas, drafted #98 at the end of the 3rd round, is "reasonably expected to be a significant contributor" to the Atlanta Falcons, whereas Defensive Back Tyvon Branch, drafted #100 at the top of the 4th round, is not expected to become any kind of contributor to the Raiders. Absolute nonsense. Yes, when things like that are used for sake of argument they mean that it's a hard line and not an approx. If you think that anybody who says something like this is marking a hard line then you are incapable of understanding the basic tenants of argument. He doesn't need to add "in general" because it's automatically understood by the rest of us. For someone who supposedly knows so much about the NFL, i'm shocked that you didnt realize that FS Thomas DeCoud was drafted by the Atlanta Falcons. Nowhere in this draft was any Decoud Thomas drafted by the Redskins. I have to admit something however. I find it highly amusing watching you throw a hissy fit like a 6 year old girl in this thread. He went back and changed it without the traditional EDIT: preceding it. I guess he thinks that make you look stupid instead. No kidding! What our friend doesn't realize it that it's not about his intelligence or his ability to crunch numbers. It's about being a condescending, arrogant, whiny little B word and how funny it is to watch the act play itself out. Too true. I bet the jets are happy they drafted Dorsey Glenn, huh? Keep it up with the immature fist pounding fit, the rest of us are enjoying it. I've gotten the popcorn and I'm sittin in the easy chair for a night of comedy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I performed a study of the positional drafting of the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills in order to see if there were clear patterns that differentiated the Bills from the draft strategy's of the best teams. WRamius couldn't process the fact that the best teams place a much higher priority at the top of the draft on defensive players and specifically DL when compared to the Bills. But your study was skewed. Over the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams, 4 of the 10 teams were the Patriots who support the 'must draft DL to succeed' premise. You'll find if you look at teams who have had regular success on the field......I'll cut & paste a previous post of mine..... The Pats & Eagles support it.....but the Colts & Steelers disprove it. Over the past 6 seasons the top 10 teams(based upon wins) are.....Pats & Colts being obviously the best over that span. NE 75 IND 73 PHI 61 PIT 60 DEN 59 S.D. 58 SEA 58 GB 57 DAL 52 TEN 52 If we count skills players as DB/WR/RB......and you are obviously comparing them to Linemen......the percentage of Skills players to Linemen over the past 10 years of 1st rounders is as follows.....Bills being 70%..... NE 29% IND 83% PHI 29% PIT 72% DEN 50% S.D. 86% SEA 40% GB 60% DAL 50% TEN 80% How can anyone realistically narrow everything down to DRAFTING POSITION 'X' = SUCCESS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafter Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Good work. Just a thought, but you could try to make it more accurate by adding a draft trade point value to each pick the teams spent. This would solve the discrepancy that a 3rd is equal to a 1st. Then you would be able to say over X amount of years the average NFL team spent 2852 draft points on DBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 IF you were smart, you would stop showing your complete lack of knowledge on statistics and correlation/causation with every post. Its downright embarrassing. As you've been told many times before, shouting the same drivel over and over 1000 times doesnt make it any less wrong. Intelligent people are always looking to learn. You on the other hand show an incredible resistance to it. Hang out with the tiny coterie of peanut-brains who are attracted to your mindless posts and continue to hide when you make an incredibly foolish prediction like your giant "WR bonanza" in the first round of the 2008 draft. 80% of the posters on this board are far more intelligent than you, and that fact alone makes your drivel tolerable from the sheer entertainment it offers. It makes your huge body of intellgence insults towards TSW posters that much more precious ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 But your study was skewed. Over the past 5 seasons Super Bowl Teams, 4 of the 10 teams were the Patriots who support the 'must draft DL to succeed' premise. You'll find if you look at teams who have had regular success on the field......I'll cut & paste a previous post of mine.....The Pats & Eagles support it.....but the Colts & Steelers disprove it. Over the past 6 seasons the top 10 teams(based upon wins) are.....Pats & Colts being obviously the best over that span. NE 75 IND 73 PHI 61 PIT 60 DEN 59 S.D. 58 SEA 58 GB 57 DAL 52 TEN 52 If we count skills players as DB/WR/RB......and you are obviously comparing them to Linemen......the percentage of Skills players to Linemen over the past 10 years of 1st rounders is as follows.....Bills being 70%..... NE 29% IND 83% PHI 29% PIT 72% DEN 50% S.D. 86% SEA 40% GB 60% DAL 50% TEN 80% How can anyone realistically narrow everything down to DRAFTING POSITION 'X' = SUCCESS??? Nice post. Excellent research. Intelligent people are always looking to learn. You on the other hand show an incredible resistance to it. Hang out with the tiny coterie of peanut-brains who are attracted to your mindless posts and continue to hide when you make an incredibly foolish prediction like your giant "WR bonanza" in the first round of the 2008 draft. 80% of the posters on this board are far more intelligent than you, and that fact alone makes your drivel tolerable from the sheer entertainment it offers. It makes your huge body of intellgence insults towards TSW posters that much more precious ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proteus Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 When Whitner, McKelvin, Simpson and Mcgee are the best secondary in the NFL in two years you guys are going to sound like asses. Seriously people freak out every after the draft and over analyze it way too much. It means nothing now! In a few months we'll get to see how good these players are for ourselves. If McKelvin and Corner perform then nobody will care. Everyone said the Bills were reaching for taking Whitner at 8. The Raiders on the other hand took Huff at 7 and were applauded. Whitner has by far out performed Huff to this point. I really believe Whitner is going to have an impact year this year. If McKelvin pans out we'll have one of the best secondaries in the league. Let's just wait and see what happens. P.S. McCargo actually turned out to be a great pick no? You may disagree but I guarantee after this season you will not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 WRamius has made some argument that requires you accept the 94th pick in the draft having the same impact on any team that the 4th player taken, and it's sheer lunacy. His inability to recognize that teams making an investment in DBs with an 11 pick is going to have more impact on the team making the pick immediately and into the future versus a team making a DB selection at 84 is among the worst analysis made on TSW this year. Perhaps ever. Simple solution. Re-run the data as a weighted average instead of a leveled average. Your point that taking 3 3rd round CBs is not the same as taking 3 1st round CBs is valid. It'd be interesting to see the weighted data... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts