I used to think Lynch supporters were bad but then...

[MRW]

Here's a study with detail, done prior to us ADDING to our ante at WR in the 2008 draft:

So how does that compare to NON-Super Bowl teams, or even non-playoff teams? Simply showing that the Super Bowl teams have spent their draft picks differently in a couple of areas than the Bills doesn't really prove anything.

 

I would think it would be more relevant to look at percentages spent on different positions in that timeframe for each team in the league and compare that with the team's record. If it plays out as you expect then the teams that invest more resources in OL/DL should have better records. But as it is, I think your comparison is incomplete.

[AKC]

So how does that compare to NON-Super Bowl teams, or even non-playoff teams? Simply showing that the Super Bowl teams have spent their draft picks differently in a couple of areas than the Bills doesn't really prove anything.

 

I would think it would be more relevant to look at percentages spent on different positions in that timeframe for each team in the league and compare that with the team's record. If it plays out as you expect then the teams that invest more resources in OL/DL should have better records. But as it is, I think your comparison is incomplete.

 

Feel free to add to the results. The methodology is included. I frankly didn't care about how we draft versus other failures; I'm interested in how the best front offices do it versus my team. My study was done as a way for me to quantify what is not exactly clear when you simply look at all #1 picks just as a #1 picks, and ignore where in the round the pick is made, plus providing a quantification of how each team's individual draft record showing how they got to the big game in recent years was done on a per position equation.

 

Can we add to it- sure- we can add more information and broaden the results. The bottom line is that I can see fairly well what I was hoping would become clear- that our front office simply doesn't believe that top DL talent is any more important, or even possibly is less important than talent at WR and RB. And the record is perfectly clear that the best teams do feel top DL talent is a better value with their top picks than stockpiling early round equity in WRs and RBs.

[MRW]

Feel free to add to the results. The methodology is included. I frankly didn't care about how we draft versus other failures; I'm interested in how the best front offices do it versus my team. My study was done as a way for me to quantify what is not exactly clear when you simply look at all #1 picks just as a #1 picks, and ignore where in the round the pick is made, plus providing a quantification of how each team's individual draft record showing how they got to the big game in recent years was done on a per position equation.

 

Can we add to it- sure- we can add more information and broaden the results. The bottom line is that I can see fairly well what I was hoping would become clear- that our front office simply doesn't believe that top DL talent is any more important, or even possibly is less important than talent at WR and RB. And the record is perfectly clear that the best teams do feel top DL talent is a better value with their top picks than stockpiling early round equity in WRs and RBs.

Sorry, but while your analysis may convince you I don't find it incredibly persuasive. There is far too much left out and I think your desired results are influencing what you decide to look at. It's simply not enough to look at the top teams and say they did X, therefore X led to their success. The bottom-feeders are relevant too, because if they do the same things as the top teams it pretty much shoots down the whole theory.

 

For the record, I've been hoping the Bills would invest more resources in the OL and DL for a while now. But I think there are a lot of problems with how you're choosing to argue this if you want to set up a statistical analysis.

[Chilly]

Here's a study with detail, done prior to us ADDING to our ante at WR in the 2008 draft:

 

Oh boy. The great AKC "study" is upon me. I shall bow down in amazement.

 

There is a reason why I called what I posted a game, and didn't draw any conclusions from it in my post: The only thing is shows is that the Bills have, at most positions, drafted around the same number of players in the first three rounds at the same positions as last year's playoff teams during the last five drafts.

 

Now, lets see what conclusions we can draw from the game that you posted:

 

The Buffalo Bills have not spent their first two round picks at the same positions as the average of the last 8 super bowl teams.

 

That is the only conclusion that you can draw from your "study" in regards to the Bills.

 

DT has become one of- if not the- most important position in the NFL today. Smart and successful teams continue stocking young, premium talent at their D interior, while we keep on stocking up on RBs and WRs and settling for lesser DTs in the draft and old, arguably twilight players in FA.

 

Lets look at this quote by you on "stocking up" talent at DT, shall we? You don't accept that I included the 3rd round. Quite frankly, I think the 3rd round is more than valid, given the quality of players that emerge. But alas, to humor you, lets do the same thing I did earlier, with just rounds 1 and 2 included, for the DT position:

 

 

Pittsburgh - 0

Indianapolis - 0

Jacksonville - 0

Dallas - 0

San Diego - 0

Tampa Bay - 0

Giants - 0

Seattle - 1

Washington - 0

Green Bay - 1

Tennessee - 0

New England - 1

 

Average: .25

Buffalo: 1

 

Unlike what you would have me believe, last year's best teams haven't stuck to stockpiling young DTs through the draft over the last 5 years.

 

Lets increase this to include the 2000 draft, shall we?

 

Pittsburgh - 1

Indianapolis - 1

Jacksonville - 2

Dallas - 0

San Diego - 0

Tampa Bay - 0

Giants - 2

Seattle - 1

Washington - 0

Green Bay - 1

Tennessee - 1

New England - 2

 

Average: .92

Buffalo: 1

 

Kinda blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it?

 

Lets look at the whole DL now, in the first two rounds, since the year 2000, for last year's playoff teams:

 

Pittsburgh - 1

Indianapolis - 2

Jacksonville - 4

Dallas - 1

San Diego - 2

Tampa Bay - 2

Giants - 4

Seattle - 4

Washington - 0

Green Bay - 1

Tennessee - 4

New England - 4

 

Average: 2.41

Buffalo: 5

 

Hmmm...

[AKC]

Sorry, but while your analysis may convince you I don't find it incredibly persuasive. There is far too much left out and I think your desired results are influencing what you decide to look at. It's simply not enough to look at the top teams and say they did X, therefore X led to their success. The bottom-feeders are relevant too, because if they do the same things as the top teams it pretty much shoots down the whole theory.

 

For the record, I've been hoping the Bills would invest more resources in the OL and DL for a while now. But I think there are a lot of problems with how you're choosing to argue this if you want to set up a statistical analysis.

 

In and of itself, the fact that some clear difference between our actions positonally at the top of the draft versus the best teams in the game might simply be discounted as consequential, but that evidence is just the beginning.

 

I see premium quality DTs being passed in the draft by the Bills to take other positions. Haloti Ngata passed by in favor of a Safety? I have to say I find that fundamentally an error in the overall strategy of Buffalo.

 

That's a little difficult to ignore.

 

Do you think we'd be a different team today if instead of taking Lee Evans in 2004, we had selected Tommie Harris? We ended up STARTING Justin Bannon. We had the need- Harris was rated one of the best players in that draft- and we ended up with Lee Evans. It's hard to imagine we couldn't have waited another turn to pick up an undersized WR.

 

But our team has NOT seen the need for DT like the good contemporary teams have. How you can sit in a division getting whipped by a team twice a year, a team who has used 3 first round picks for DTs in the past 8 drafts, and not notice that we're undermanned inside?

 

I for one will no longer ignore it. The piss-poor gamble that Stroud represents may get the casual observer giddy, but it shouldn't get students of the contemporary NFL game feeling great about our '08 prospects. The way to beat the better teams today is with great defensive interiors, and entering the 2008 campaign, calling our great should be accompanied with a good burst of howling hysteria.

[AKC]

Kinda blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it?

 

My study quantifies an equity for each pick, with the first pick in the draft being worth more than the second, and so on. Anyone honestly considering the subject would agree that this approach is necessary to consider equity. Your premise is, with all due respect, idiotic if trying to determine the equity of picks and hence their importance. You have the 46th pick in the draft being of an equal value to the 1st pick, and that is not only unrealistic, it's virtually useless. If you want to honestly talk about draft pick equity, you must offer some form of quantification. I've done that, and in the most logical way. Let's see your system.

[Chilly]

My study quantifies an equity for each pick, with the first pick in the draft being worth more than the second, and so on. Anyone honestly considering the subject would agree that this approach is necessary to consider equity. Your premise is, with all due respect, idiotic if trying to determine the equity of picks and hence their importance. You have the 46th pick in the draft being of an equal value to the 1st pick, and that is not only unrealistic, it's virtually useless. If you want to honestly talk about draft pick equity, you must offer some form of quantification. I've done that, and in the most logical way. Let's see your system.

 

Oh yeah, it makes total sense to weight the picks when you're talking about stockpiling DTs.

 

After all, if your team spends the 7th pick in the draft at the Defensive Tackle position, you get more Defensive Tackles than if your team spends the 22nd overall pick in the draft on a Defensive Tackle.

[BillsVet]

7 DB's picked in 3 seasons versus 8 total picks on the OL and DL.

 

McCargo is the highest picked OL or DL. No OL before the 5th round in three drafts.

 

Buffalo has used as many picks (8) on offensive skill positions as they have on their OL and DL.

 

And yet, there's an issue running the football and stopping the run. So much so that the braintrust at OBD decided to give up a third and a fifth on a DT (Stroud) who has had a hard time remaining on the field. And we can't forget giving up a 2nd and 3rd to move up to select McCargo just 2 years ago. Don't forget spending 17.5M on a DL tweener in Spencer Johnson.

 

From a resource management perspective, the Bills attempt to patch up rather than solve problems, particularly on the DL is not the answer. The OL features 3 FA's, none of whom lived up to their contracts last season. Donahoe's way of finding cheap OL and DL has been followed by Marv and Dick's method of spending big on FA OL and DL to focus on more DB's and RB's. Just like the Colts, Chargers, Giants, Jaguars, Pats*, and Packers do.

 

Donahoe's reign of error is eerily similar to what's going on now, albeit with Brandon playing the role of GM. The result is the same however-no playoffs.

[AKC]

Oh yeah, it makes total sense to weight the picks when you're talking about stockpiling DTs.

 

After all, if your team spends the 7th pick in the draft at the Defensive Tackle position, you get more Defensive Tackles than if your team spends the 22nd overall pick in the draft on a Defensive Tackle.

 

 

Here's the problem with simply "adding up" draft picks. In your unweighted system, the Bills can draft 3 DL with the 60th pick in three drafts, and you consider that to be three times more valuable than picking a DL once with the first pick in the draft. Consequently, your results are not simply misleading, they're false. We know a pick at 12 is more critical than a pick at 46, among the reasons being the money that the team must commit to the earlier pick.

 

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of how much total equity each Super Bowl team individually have in the draft compared to the Bills, and then positionally how that equity was spent. This allows a quantification of the importance each team places at each position. You might honestly argue that you want to see the methodology of mine expanded, but you can't make any intellectually honest argument that the unweighted sum you've arrived at gives any evidence of how teams are approaching the draft positionally from their highest pick on down the board.

[AKC]

Don't forget spending 17.5M on a DL tweener in Spencer Johnson.

 

That's been one of the great mysteries of this off-season- all the talk in the media about the Bills DLine gaining size, and some in our fan base insisting we're going to be better against the run? I'm having a hard time seeing how Spencer Johnson at 275 pounds is going to help out our interior run defense, among the worst in the NFL not that many months ago.

[Chilly]

Here's the problem with simply "adding up" draft picks. In your unweighted system, the Bills can draft 3 DL with the 60th pick in three drafts, and you consider that to be three times more valuable than picking a DL once with the first pick in the draft. Consequently, your results are not simply misleading, they're false. We know a pick at 12 is more critical than a pick at 46, among the reasons being the money that the team must commit to the earlier pick.

 

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of how much total equity each Super Bowl team individually have in the draft compared to the Bills, and then positionally how that equity was spent. This allows a quantification of the importance each team places at each position. You might honestly argue that you want to see the methodology of mine expanded, but you can't make any intellectually honest argument that the unweighted sum you've arrived at gives any evidence of how teams are approaching the draft positionally from their highest pick on down the board.

 

 

You said the top teams stockpile DT talent and the Bills don't. This means that they pick significantly MORE Defensive Tackles than the Buffalo Bills. Picking ONE Defensive Tackle at #1 is NOT "stockpiling" Defensive Tackles. Picking a Defensive Tackle in the second round of three consecutive drafts IS stockpiling talent.

[AKC]

 

You said the top teams stockpile DT talent and the Bills don't. This means that they pick significantly MORE Defensive Tackles than the Buffalo Bills. Picking ONE Defensive Tackle at #1 is NOT "stockpiling" Defensive Tackles. Picking a Defensive Tackle in the second round of three consecutive drafts IS stockpiling talent.

 

You make a good point about my word choice there- "stockpile" is too easily associated with a numercial quantity versus a "volume" quantity, which has been my position regarding draft equity all along. I'll retract the word to clarify the discussion.

 

I'll limit the use of "stockpile" to situations like the Pats* use of 3 out of their last 8 #1 picks on DT. I'll assume we're in agreement that "stockpile" is the appropriate word to use in their case.

[Chilly]

Since you keep pushing your "study", I decided to take a closer look at it.

 

Bills

DL 16%

DB 20%

WR 18%

OL 12%

TE 0%

RB 20%

LB 6%

QB 8%

 

First, I want to take a look at how you got these numbers. I decided to do a little test, and see how you came to these numbers.

 

I marked those 7 drafts down, and then divided the number that you assigned it by the total from all 7 drafts. As it turns out, the percentage that I received were the numbers you had listed if you rounded.

 

The problem, therefore, is you are acting as if the Bills decided where in the draft they were going to pick each year for seven years, and planned it out over those seven years, to make RB be 20% of the "points" they were budgeted.

 

In reality, drafts don't work that way. Each team has to choose what to take wear, only knowing that they have a pick somewhere in the first round the year after.

 

Lets also consider how it would have affected your total if the Bills had taken DT Ryan Sims (who was the first DT drafted) at #4 instead of Mike Williams. If you move those 61 points that you've assigned to Mike Williams over to DL, it jumps the percentage up to 20%, pretty close to that 23% magic number that you have. Yet, the Bills would be no better off, because both Mike Williams and Ryan Sims were busts.

 

You have no way to even suggest causation - making these numbers useless.

 

Picking relatively few draft busts is much more important then deciding you're going to take a DT because you have a pick in the top 15 of the NFL Draft.

 

Now for a completely subjective, non-valid view to illustrate my point: Between 2000 and 2005, the Bills found only 8/50 (16%) players I would consider solid starters. In contrast, the Pats* found 13/51 solid starters (25%), including a franchise QB. With 22 starters on offense and defense, those extra 5 players amount to more than 20% of the starting squad, freeing up lots of money for free agency, putting them even further ahead. Likewise, the Colts were 16/49 (32%), versus the Lions at 6/44 (13%).

 

The stronger one drafts, the more holes can be filled via the draft, the more money that can be spent on top-flight free agents, and the more you can spread your drafts around positionally instead of focusing on one area that you keep busting in. Thus, having strong drafts (regardless of the positions drafted) is much more important than sticking to a positional view of the draft.

[VOR]

I'll limit the use of "stockpile" to situations like the Pats* use of 3 out of their last 8 #1 picks on DT. I'll assume we're in agreement that "stockpile" is the appropriate word to use in their case.

Does the fact that 2 of those 1st round DT's have been playing DE for them for the past 4 years make a difference? Since we can't go back in time, what should the Bills have done differently this past off-season than trade for Stroud (who was an all-pro in 2005 and playing well in 2006 until he got injured)? Rogers and Jenkins have had injury problems, if not suspensions, and Corey Williams is a 3-tech.

[AKC]

The problem, therefore, is you are acting as if the Bills decided where in the draft they were going to pick each year for seven years, and planned it out over those seven years, to make RB be 20% of the "points" they were budgeted.

 

In reality, drafts don't work that way. Each team has to choose what to take wear, only knowing that they have a pick somewhere in the first round the year after.

 

Only in your static model where the 71st pick has the same value as the 1st pick would that be true. In an equity model, a quantification of each pick allows a study by position based upon whatever each team ended up with ragardless of any of the factors that determined their position in each draft.

 

Lets also consider how it would have affected your total if the Bills had taken DT Ryan Sims (who was the first DT drafted) at #4 instead of Mike Williams. If you move those 61 points that you've assigned to Mike Williams over to DL, it jumps the percentage up to 20%, pretty close to that 23% magic number that you have. Yet, the Bills would be no better off, because both Mike Williams and Ryan Sims were busts.

 

You have no way to even suggest causation - making these numbers useless.

 

Picking relatively few draft busts is much more important then deciding you're going to take a DT because you have a pick in the top 15 of the NFL Draft.

 

re no other dymnamic, no other influence, no other information used to make the pick than a monolithic "next player at X position down the board". You seem to have the capacity to recognize the concept of multiple variables influencing the final pick, and as I mentioned previously OF COURSE good scouting is part of it, and OF COURSE other intagibles are part of it, but the pattern is defined enough between the best teams who are more likely to use that high equity on DL and TE versus the bottom-feeders like Buffalo and Detroit who are RB/WR oriented. Again, the study is exploring one aspect of the decisionmaking process to see if it's possible to bring to light the types of differences that make the winners the winners and the Bills the Bills- I've never suggested as you insist that this is the "only" factor considered when our number comes up on draft day. I'm suggesting that there's enough evidence to suggest there are "premiums" attached to positions and that the winner's formula varies substantially from the losers.

 

Thus, having strong drafts (regardless of the positions drafted) is much more important than sticking to a positional view of the draft.

 

I think you have to ignore way to much evidence to the contrary to adopt the "it's only scouting that every draft decision is made upon". There are multiple considerations the best front offices make when that first pick comes up- including team needs, character, signability. There are quotes from personnel guys in the NFL who talk about discounting "first round WRs", for example, to think this same type of general rule doesn't play the other way in the upgrading of other positions. There are far too many facts that must be ignored in order to settle on your simplistic "it's only good scouting" theory.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Now for a completely subjective, non-valid view to illustrate my point: Between 2000 and 2005, the Bills found only 8/50 (16%) players I would consider solid starters.

Can't get more subjective than that.

 

I assume this subjectivity is to address the fact that the number of starters drafted is meaningless, since a below average player, who wouldn't even make most rosters, can be drafted and start for a bottom feeding team.

 

What might be more telling is the number of Pro Bowlers drafted. Or taking the number of starters acquired through the draft and weighting them by the number of games started and scaled by the number of games won. A player that starts 160 games straight, goes to 8 Pro Bowls, and is a member of a team with a 0.667 winning percentage and 3 Super Bowls appearances is much more valuable, one would think, than a guy that started 5 games in 4 years, has never heard of the Pro Bowl, and who's team won to the tune of 0.250.

[stuckincincy]

...but the pattern is defined enough between the best teams who are more likely to use that high equity on DL and TE versus the bottom-feeders like Buffalo and Detroit who are RB/WR oriented. Again, the study is exploring one aspect of the decision making process to see if it's possible to bring to light the types of differences that make the winners the winners and the Bills the Bills- I've never suggested as you insist that this is the "only" factor considered when our number comes up on draft day. I'm suggesting that there's enough evidence to suggest there are "premiums" attached to positions and that the winner's formula varies substantially from the losers....

 

I hold an unsubsantiated opinion that some iffy clubs will draft a spiffy RB or WR, because it enthuses the fans and sells tickets and trinkets.

 

CIN and Corey Dillon comes to mind. They certainly took pains to give him a good run blocking, if not pass blocking, OL.

 

They also used to crow about how in one season, they were tough as nails against the run (the opposition didn't bother running because they could pass them silly), the next season they were leaders in pass defense (Stevie Wonder or Grandma Moses could have dinged their run defense for 150 rush yards and 3 tds).

[Chilly]

Only in your static model where the 71st pick has the same value as the 1st pick would that be true. In an equity model, a quantification of each pick allows a study by position based upon whatever each team ended up with ragardless of any of the factors that determined their position in each draft.

 

It wasn't really a model for anything, actually, even though you keep acting like it was - it was simply to address the statement that the Bills don't spend as many picks on certain positions as other teams.

 

It was not to address whether they spend more valuable picks or not on certain players - which is where you run into all sorts of problems, as your "study" does.

 

The problem is simply saying "the Bills used x number of points at a position out of their total over 7 years." Its simplistic and doesn't get you very far. It acts as though the Bills can plan where they get a pick, and that it is logical for them to have said "well, since we have a top-15 pick, we're going to take a DT."

 

To take your example of the Pats*, they haven't said "Well, we have more draft resources this year, so we need to spend them at _____ position." They took at DT at 6 in 2001, a DE at 13 in 2003, and a NT at #23 in 2004. They aren't magically good because they picked three Defensive Linemen at those positions.

 

The Rams spent a #29, #12, #12, #13 on DTs during the same time frame. Yet, they suck. Know why? Despite having very strong drafts compared to what you are pushing, they don't know how to pick players who will be solid in the NFL.

 

 

re no other dymnamic, no other influence, no other information used to make the pick than a monolithic "next player at X position down the board". You seem to have the capacity to recognize the concept of multiple variables influencing the final pick, and as I mentioned previously OF COURSE good scouting is part of it, and OF COURSE other intagibles are part of it, but the pattern is defined enough between the best teams who are more likely to use that high equity on DL and TE versus the bottom-feeders like Buffalo and Detroit who are RB/WR oriented. Again, the study is exploring one aspect of the decisionmaking process to see if it's possible to bring to light the types of differences that make the winners the winners and the Bills the Bills- I've never suggested as you insist that this is the "only" factor considered when our number comes up on draft day. I'm suggesting that there's enough evidence to suggest there are "premiums" attached to positions and that the winner's formula varies substantially from the losers.

 

Ah, yes, the great straw-man argument. Claim that I suggested something that I didn't.

 

You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that your model is a cause for winning. None. Zip. Nada.

 

Its very simple: You're drawing conclusions that you can't make based off of what you did - suggesting that the Bills would be better drafters by being more like past super bowl winners. You must have causation to say that, and you don't.

 

I think you have to ignore way to much evidence to the contrary to adopt the "it's only scouting that every draft decision is made upon". There are multiple considerations the best front offices make when that first pick comes up- including team needs, character, signability. There are quotes from personnel guys in the NFL who talk about discounting "first round WRs", for example, to think this same type of general rule doesn't play the other way in the upgrading of other positions. There are far too many facts that must be ignored in order to settle on your simplistic "it's only good scouting" theory.

 

Another straw man argument.

 

I said the most important determination, by far, to being a successful drafter and the largest impact on your win-loss record through the draft is your scouting department. I don't even know why you're arguing that point, its common frickin' sense.

 

If you want to argue positions as being very important in a drafting approach, it would be much more useful to look at return and scarcity vs round/pick for each position. This look at what the past 7 super bowl winners did means little.

 

Can't get more subjective than that.

 

I assume this subjectivity is to address the fact that the number of starters drafted is meaningless, since a below average player, who wouldn't even make most rosters, can be drafted and start for a bottom feeding team.

 

That - and because it was midnight and I wanted to sleep, not write a detailed post.

[AKC]

I hold an unsubsantiated opinion

 

On a Message Board? How dare you!

 

I think I can make a very good case for the idea that some teams apply a higher premium to some positions early in the draft- The fact is that we already know, because it's been publicly acknowledged, that some of the best personnel people DISCOUNT positions like WR high in the draft because history has proven the bust rates/payoffs make other positions safer to take. So knowing that some personnel people drop the value of some positions high up in the draft, it's logical to assume there is an opposite effect on positions they deem to be lower bust/better early values.

 

We also know that there are more dynamics that go into the decision of that first round pick, and it's possible marquee value is one as you point out. We know again for a fact from statements made by teams that they also consider things like fit in the community, and we've seen guys who were picked specifically for their signability over other players who were rated higher.

 

That's plenty of evidence proving the falsehood of the "good teams draft the highest rated player regardelss of position" argument that Bluefire and a few others promote.

 

So knowing that teams use means of grading a pick other than "highest rated regardless of position", knowing that some good teams reduce the value of some specific positions and seeing the equity trends among the best teams differing fairly substantially from the way the Bills and Lions have been drafting, it seems like we might want to begin to pay closer attention to the trends of those better football teams with our early picks.

[34-78-83]

On a Message Board? How dare you!

 

I think I can make a very good case for the idea that some teams apply a higher premium to some positions early in the draft- The fact is that we already know, because it's been publicly acknowledged, that some of the best personnel people DISCOUNT positions like WR high in the draft because history has proven the bust rates/payoffs make other positions safer to take. So knowing that some personnel people drop the value of some positions high up in the draft, it's logical to assume there is an opposite effect on positions they deem to be lower bust/better early values.

 

We also know that there are more dynamics that go into the decision of that first round pick, and it's possible marquee value is one as you point out. We know again for a fact from statements made by teams that they also consider things like fit in the community, and we've seen guys who were picked specifically for their signability over other players who were rated higher.

 

That's plenty of evidence proving the falsehood of the "good teams draft the highest rated player regardelss of position" argument that Bluefire and a few others promote.

 

So knowing that teams use means of grading a pick other than "highest rated regardless of position", knowing that some good teams reduce the value of some specific positions and seeing the equity trends among the best teams differing fairly substantially from the way the Bills and Lions have been drafting, it seems like we might want to begin to pay closer attention to the trends of those better football teams with our early picks.

 

Could the Bills have done better for themselves than Lynch and Poz last year with their first 2 picks? I'm not so sure....