Our second Defensive series- Perfect example

[AKC]

This isn't directed at you at all, but the position *does* have a really high bust rate for first rounders, and the Giants d-line last year was heavy on rounds 2-4 (Strahan-2; Tuck-3; Umenyiora-2; Barry Cofield-4; Fred Robbins-2 (but signed by the Giants as a FA)). Kiawanuka was hurt, and their one true DT first rounder of recent years, William Joseph, was a bust. Also, if reports are to be believed, the reason the Bills traded up for McCargo is because the Giants were set on taking him.

 

The Giants are a great example of a team that uses regular equity at the top of the draft (first 2 rounds) on the DLines, and at a higher rate than the Bills. If you look at teams like the Pats/Giants/Eagles/Colts/Bears, they put a much higher emphasis on it than teams like Buffalo and Detroit, who have been spending more of that early equity on the offensive side of the ball and more specifically on WRs.

 

There is enough a split in the way the worst versus the best do it that for my money, there's enough evidence in the form of watching us pass on players like Tommie Harris and Haloti Ngata and arguably even Vince Wilfork to support a conclusion that the Buffalo Bills place the importance of DTs below where the position is valued by the best clubs. It's become disheartening to watch our team piss away the opportunity to get better in a hurry in drafts where difference makers inside are available and we let them go to the competition, ending up with guys like McCargo who is never going to be a complete DT, and might not even become much a a pass-rushing DT if he continues down his current path.

[AKC]

Then your theory would be proven with numbers. Of course, over a span of 4 months, your theory has been unequivocally disproved by anyone who examined your data, assumptions and results.

 

That's BS. The data showed that we used less top of the draft equity on DL over the past 7 drafts than the best teams over the same span. There was a lot of "if I'd done it I'd have included.." or "I'd have gone 10 years" nonsense, but the data shows what it shows. You may have a theory, I instead have evidence. What the value of that evidence is can surely be argued, but it does show that we're closer to Detroit in our first two round drafting strategies by position than we are to NE* and others.

[stuckincincy]

The Giants are a great example of a team that uses regular equity at the top of the draft (first 2 rounds) on the DLines, and at a higher rate than the Bills. If you look at teams like the Pats/Giants/Eagles/Colts/Bears, they put a much higher emphasis on it than teams like Buffalo and Detroit, who have been spending more of that early equity on the offensive side of the ball and more specifically on WRs.

 

There is enough a split in the way the worst versus the best do it that for my money, there's enough evidence in the form of watching us pass on players like Tommie Harris and Haloti Ngata and arguably even Vince Wilfork to support a conclusion that the Buffalo Bills place the importance of DTs below where the position is valued by the best clubs. It's become disheartening to watch our team piss away the opportunity to get better in a hurry in drafts where difference makers inside are available and we let them go to the competition, ending up with guys like McCargo who is never going to be a complete DT, and might not even become much a a pass-rushing DT if he continues down his current path.

 

Aztec Two-Step?

[GG]

That's BS. The data showed that we used less top of the draft equity on DL over the past 7 drafts than the best teams over the same span. There was a lot of "if I'd done it I'd have included.." or "I'd have gone 10 years" nonsense, but the data shows what it shows.

 

No.

 

The real data shows that the Bills have drafted almost identically to the Steelers & Colts, but not like Pats* or Eagles. So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

The data also showed that Texans, Jets & KC also used a lot of their "draft equity" for interior linemen. So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

The data also showed that bills drafted absolutely nothing like the Lions.

 

But you can keep up with your supermostexcellent methodology. It's been a riot.

[Ramius]

That's BS. The data showed that we used less top of the draft equity on DL over the past 7 drafts than the best teams over the same span. There was a lot of "if I'd done it I'd have included.." or "I'd have gone 10 years" nonsense, but the data shows what it shows. You may have a theory, I instead have evidence. What the value of that evidence is can surely be argued, but it does show that we're closer to Detroit in our first two round drafting strategies by position than we are to NE* and others.

 

The Chiefs, Texans, and Rams are 3 teams that have spent the same, if not more "draft equity" on the DL and on DTs than your above named teams. Based on your numerical masturbation, they should have been 3 of the top teams in the NFL over recent years. However, history shows that they have been 3 of the worst teams over that timespan.

 

Why then, were they so bad, when they subscribed to your super bowl winning method of drafting lots of high 1st round DTs*?

 

 

*Not those DTs. No, not those DTs either.

[Ramius]

For references' sake, heres a link to OCinPHilly laying a beat down on the supermostexcellent © methodology.

 

AKC has yet to respond...

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1036876

[AKC]

Aztec Two-Step?

 

Only if you are stupid anough to believe a lie perpetrated by Ramius. Now on the other hand, if you're smart enough to actually go to my posts, and the study in particular, you'll see that I used the first two rounds and quantified each pick/position for 7 drafts. The Giants used more equity over that time frame than the Bills by a substantial percentage. And that was the finding I offered- that more top draft equity was used by the best teams than by the Bills.

 

Now I understand why all the "we have to draft a WR at #1" people couldn't accept that good teams in 2008 weren't looking at WRs in the first. The results I got showed that the best teams put a lot less equity in WRs. The fact we still have the same numbskulls writhing over it tells me more about human nature than it does about our fan base.

[Chilly]

Only if you are stupid anough to believe a lie perpetrated by Ramius. Now on the other hand, if you're smart enough to actually go to my posts, and the study in particular, you'll see that I used the first two rounds and quantified each pick/position for 7 drafts. The Giants used more equity over that time frame than the Bills by a substantial percentage. And that was the finding I offered- that more top draft equity was used by the best teams than by the Bills.

 

Now I understand why all the "we have to draft a WR at #1" people couldn't accept that good teams in 2008 weren't looking at WRs in the first. The results I got showed that the best teams put a lot less equity in WRs. The fact we still have the same numbskulls writhing over it tells me more about human nature than it does about our fan base.

 

Funny how no one's mentioned WRs until now, eh?

[GG]

Funny how no one's mentioned WRs until now, eh?

 

Especially when the quote isn't even attributable.

[AKC]

No.

 

The real data shows that the Bills have drafted almost identically to the Steelers & Colts, but not like Pats* or Eagles. So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

The data also showed that Texans, Jets & KC also used a lot of their "draft equity" for interior linemen. So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

The data also showed that bills drafted absolutely nothing like the Lions.

 

But you can keep up with your supermostexcellent methodology. It's been a riot.

 

Where do you come up with that BS? The Colts? Are you kidding me? You need to go back and read the study- you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Colts used DLine equity at a rate virtually 50% greater than the Bills over the study period.

 

Let me fill you in on a little secret about the Steelers- they play in a 3-4. That scheme requires a greater investment in LBs than a team in a 4-3, and a lesser investment in DL. Act as surprised as you want at the Steelers equity numbers and suggest that the Bills having similar numbers is somehow "equal"- but let the intellectually honest and curious discuss the trends.

 

 

Lions Bills? BS once again. The study showed that like the Lions, the Bills spend a higher draft equity at the top of the draft on their offenses versus their defenses, while the best teams use high draft equity on defenses.

 

KC? The Jets? The Texans? Spare me the Chicken Little arguments- Ramius is already in the thread. As I said in the study- I couldn't care less what mistakes bad teams make- i wanted to see how the Bills stacked up to the best teams. I only included the Lions info because of the Ramius insistence that we'd see a run on WRs in the first round of the 2008 draft.

[Chilly]

KC? The Jets? The Texans? Spare me the Chicken Little arguments- Ramius is already in the thread. As I said in the study- I couldn't care less what mistakes bad teams make- i wanted to see how the Bills stacked up to the best teams. I only included the Lions info becaseu fo the Ramius insistence that we'd see a run on WRs in the first round of the 2008 draft.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guid...7363&sr=8-6

[Dawgg]

Funny how no one's mentioned WRs until now, eh?

 

It's also funny how the masses lauded Marv a genius for trading back into the first round and picking McCargo, who was obviously a reach at the time... now, as it becomes increasingly obvious that he's a first-round bust that can't beat out Kyle Williams, they'll just play childish games attacking AKC's posts.

[AKC]

For references' sake, heres a link to OCinPHilly laying a beat down on the supermostexcellent © methodology.

 

AKC has yet to respond...

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1036876

 

I enjoy you making a compete ass of yourself. OC IN PHilly says he'd have expanded the study to include more teams. Good for him.

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

That's right, it's as stupid in this context as it was when you put it in the above string. You apparently haven't recovered from being exposed for your statements about "all the first round WRs in 2008" that turned out to show you to be a draft know-nothing. All your spam isn't going to change your inability to understand the draft strategies of the best teams.

[Dawgg]

Especially when the quote isn't even attributable.

 

There are plenty of "attributable" quotes here from the various intellectuals on this board who were crying for a WR at #11.

[BillsVet]

No.

 

The real data shows that the Bills have drafted almost identically to the Steelers & Colts, but not like Pats* or Eagles. So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

The data also showed that Texans, Jets & KC also used a lot of their "draft equity" for interior linemen. So what does that prove? Nothing.

 

The data also showed that bills drafted absolutely nothing like the Lions.

 

But you can keep up with your supermostexcellent methodology. It's been a riot.

 

I love it when people compare the Bills' draft record with teams like the Steelers and Colts. As we know, the Bills haven't been to the post-season in 8 years, while those two teams have won Super Bowls. Something tells me the Colts and Steelers have a better front office and recognize talent.

 

It all starts with prioritzing the positions that are most difficult to fill with good to excellent players. QB, DE, OLT, and DT. Very few players in the NFL can play these positions at a high level. And teams like Detroit and Buffalo have eschewed these positions at the top of the draft. When they do select one, it's a reach like McCargo was.

 

What makes me laugh is the notion that Buffalo was scared into thinking the Giants would select McCargo. I cannot see Ernie Accorsi selecting a guy with motivational problems. The Bills were duped, and it wasn't hard given that the GM was new and inexperienced.

[dave mcbride]

Only if you are stupid anough to believe a lie perpetrated by Ramius. Now on the other hand, if you're smart enough to actually go to my posts, and the study in particular, you'll see that I used the first two rounds and quantified each pick/position for 7 drafts. The Giants used more equity over that time frame than the Bills by a substantial percentage. And that was the finding I offered- that more top draft equity was used by the best teams than by the Bills.

 

Now I understand why all the "we have to draft a WR at #1" people couldn't accept that good teams in 2008 weren't looking at WRs in the first. The results I got showed that the best teams put a lot less equity in WRs. The fact we still have the same numbskulls writhing over it tells me more about human nature than it does about our fan base.

But the Giants invested a great deal in the WR spot - more than on any spot save Strahan and Manning - just a couple of years ago when they landed Burris. Since I think it's spurious to differentiate between FAs and draft picks, I think it is certainly tenable to claim that they spent the equivalent of a top 15 pick (as a proportion of their cap and as a choice made amongst a limited pool of players available to all 32 teams) on Burris (who was in fact a top five pick for the Steelers, who seemed to suffer no ill effects from spending such a high pick on a receiver). If you combine that with Shockey (a high first rounder) Toomer (a second rounder), Sinorice Moss (high second rounder) plus other picks from recent years -- Tim Carter (second rounder), Joe Jurevicious (second rounder), and Ike Hilliard (a high first rounder) -- it's pretty clear that the Giants are investing a helluva lot of equity in the receiver spot. It's even plausible to argue that they've focused more on that than D-line. And don't get me started on Will Allen, Shaun Williams, and Aaron Ross -- all first round DBs of recent vintage.

[Ramius]

Where do you come up with that BS? The Colts? Are you kidding me? You need to go back and read the study- you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Colts used DLine equity at a rate virtually 50% greater than the Bills over the study period.

 

 

Lions Bills? BS once again. The study showed that like the Lions, the Bills spend a higher draft equity at the top fo the draft on their offenses versus their defenses, while the best teams use high draft equity on defenses.

 

KC? The Jets? The Texans? Spare me the Chicken Little arguments- Ramius is already in the thread. As I said in the study- I couldn't care less what mistakes bad teams make- i wanted to see how the Bills stacked up to the best teams. I only included the Lions info because of the Ramius insistence that we'd see a run on WRs in the first round of the 2008 draft.

 

First it was first round DTs, then it was first round DL, now its entire defense? Wow, talk about back tracking.

 

As for OC in Philly, he didnt say how he did it, he pointed out specific parts of your numerical jerk off that were utterly and statistically invalid. The bold parts below show where your inaccuracies begin. But, since you have so laughably demonstrated the lack of even a cursory knowledge of statistical analysis, i'd hardly expect you to understand the points he's making.

 

haven't been following much of the Ramius vs. AKC war, but I will tell you that if you think it's a good idea to compare us only against the "best" teams, without establishing a control(isolate the variables we are talking about here), or better, proving the inverse(contrapositive), then this is simply bad math. The reason is simple: if your findings are supposed to prove a causation then the inverse of the causal relationship you have defined should, by definition, be true as well.

 

Consider: if you were saying that the lower a person's IQ, the more likely they are to believe in Global Warming, the inverse of that = the higher a person's IQ the less likely they are to believe in Global Warming, should be true as well, which would clearly demonstrate IQ as a causal factor on belief in Global Warming. You have to study the whole data set, and if you cannot establish the inverse of your causal relationship between variables, as well as your premise, then there must be some other mitigating factors(in this case political ideology), or limiting factors(mean, median and mode IQs of the sample set), that have to be run down and accounted for, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

 

So, if you are trying to prove that "the best teams have a higher propensity to draft O or D line earlier and/or more often" it simply stands to reason that you must also prove that "the worst teams have a higher propensity to not draft O or D line earlier and/or more often". Telling us that you "don't care about what mistakes" the bad teams make doesn't suffice, and changes your efforts from a "study" to mere "conjecture" in a heartbeat = you are simply pissing into the wind, and it's landing on the rest of us...

 

And none of this resolves the Texans either.

 

And as for my WR quote, well, everyone has already seen your issues with accuracy, so no one is surprised that you cut and pasted pieces of my post to fit your silly, childish argument.

[AKC]

I love it when people compare the Bills' draft record with teams like the Steelers and Colts. As we know, the Bills haven't been to the post-season in 8 years, while those two teams have won Super Bowls. Something tells me the Colts and Steelers have a better front office and recognize talent.

 

What's laughable is his trying to sell that the Bills 4-3 scheme DL investment is comparable to the Steelers in a 3-4! Yeah, their roster should look just like ours from a positional allotment, wink wink.

[GG]

Wher do you come up with that BS?

 

Uhm, by looking at the NFL drafts from 1999 through 2007?

 

 

The Colts? Are you kidding me? You need to go back and read the study- you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Colts used DLine equity at a rate virtually 50% greater than the Bills over the study period.

 

There's no need for me to look back at your study, because about a dozen people who wasted their time analyzing you supermostexcellent methodology came away with the same conclusion.

 

Instead, I'll repeat something I recall seeing before.

 

But let's stick with your definition that only SB teams need apply. But to establish a pattern, you need to look at more than one year to take out the possibility that the year you happened to pick was an aberration. Your methodology also does not give any credit to coaching & personnel moves outside the teams' drafts in assigning probability of success.

 

The most important thing is that you cannot compare the Bills to the best teams. You have to compare the best teams and the Bills to the league average for it to be statistically valid. Otherwise it is not a methodology but a random correlation to make your point look good. I can claim that coaches with a "Bill" somewhere in their name won 5 of last 8 SuperBowls, yet there's no causation of the fact. But it is a totally perfect correlation.

 

So taking out all the above important variables to a team's success, the Bills' drafting allocation in the first round compared to the last 5 SB teams (and looking back 7 years) is:

 

(Excuse the formatting)

 

Team #Picks DT DE LB DB C G T QB RB WR TE K

 

NYG 6 17% 17% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 17% 0%

Pat 13 23% 0% 8% 23% 8% 8% 0% 0% 15% 0% 15% 0%

Ind 6 0% 17% 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 17% 0%

CHI 7 14% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14% 14% 14% 0% 0%

Car 5 20% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Sea 9 11% 11% 0% 11% 11% 11% 11% 0% 11% 11% 11% 0%

Phi 7 14% 14% 0% 14% 0% 0% 29% 14% 0% 14% 0% 0%

Pitt 6 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 17% 0%

Buf 11 9% 9% 0% 27% 0% 0% 9% 9% 27% 9% 0% 0%

 

To test this further, I added other teams with recent poor performance:

 

 

KC 9 11% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 11% 22% 11% 0%

Oak 14 7% 7% 7% 43% 0% 0% 21% 7% 0% 0% 0% 7%

Det 13 0% 0% 15% 15% 0% 0% 23% 8% 8% 31% 0% 0%

AZ 13 8% 15% 0% 15% 0% 0% 23% 8% 8% 23% 0% 0%

 

And if anything jumps out, it's that since the '97 draft, the Bill shave placed a higher value on the skill positions both on offense and defense, rather than building both sides of the line. This largely because the team has been overinsvesting in finding a replacement for Kelly & Thomas. Had you framed your argument that way, you would not have gotten pushback, because the data does back that up.

 

However, to say that Bills are more like the Lions than the winning teams is crap, because the Bills' draft history in the first round is nothing like the Lions', and now you have data that proves it.

 

Lions Bills? BS once again. The study showed that like the Lions, the Bills spend a higher draft equity at the top fo the draft on their offenses versus their defenses, while the best teams use high draft equity on defenses.

 

KC? The Jets? The Texans? Spare me the Chicken Little arguments- Ramius is already in the thread. As I said in the study- I couldn't care less what mistakes bad teams make- i wanted to see how the Bills stacked up to the best teams. I only included the Lions info becaseu fo the Ramius insistence that we'd see a run on WRs in the first round of the 2008 draft.

 

See above. See any other response from people who went through the mental torture of this crusade.

 

All you had to say is that Bills should have drafted Harris ahead of Evans & Ngata instead of Whitner, and this whole brain fart would have been extinct before it began.

[AKC]

And as for my WR quote, well, everyone has already seen your issues with accuracy, so no one is surprised that you cut and pasted pieces of my post to fit your silly, childish argument.

 

 

Ramius- Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WR were taken in the first round

 

Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st

 

Does the head of that pin hurt your feet?