Our second Defensive series- Perfect example

[AKC]

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

 

 

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.

 

Oh my God- there're a dozen idiots on TSW? Say it ain't so!

[Chilly]

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.

 

I've been abstaining from an opinion on McCargo (other than I hoped he would become a force to be reckoned with this season with Stroud getting double-teams next to him and some increased strength and technique).

 

Attacking AKC's posts aren't playing a childish game, though. His completely and utterly invalid "study" has no solid foundation; pointing it out is fair.

[GG]

Oh my God- there're a dozen idiots on TSW? Say it ain't so!

 

Nice to see you play the role of Gallileo the Pariah, because I've yet to see a single defense of the data, assumptions and conclusions of your supermostexcellent methodology.

 

Disprove my theory that in order to win a SuperBowl, the head coach needs to have a "Bill" in his name.

[Chilly]

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

 

But yours doesn't take into account where the picks were in the round!!!! [/AKC]

[AKC]

Bills should have drafted Harris ahead of Evans & Ngata instead of Whitner.

 

I won't argue with you on that.

 

If you'd actually gone to the study and read it, you wouldn't have found yourself swimming in the Ramius lie about "any DT", and you would have seen that the honest reviewers suggested expansions, but the methodology (which was all included) was acceptable and ended up showing that there are measurable positional drafting tendencies, and the Bills tendencies in some cases are out of whack with good NFL teams, and very specifically in the areas of DL/TE.

[AKC]

Nice to see you play the role of Gallileo the Pariah, because I've yet to see a single defense of the data, assumptions and conclusions of your supermostexcellent methodology.

 

You cook a nice dinner and street people show up- welcome to the Internet.

 

Disprove my theory that in order to win a SuperBowl, the head coach needs to have a "Bill" in his name.

 

Why don't we start with Super Bowl I.

[GG]

I won't argue with you on that.

 

If you'd actually gone to the study and read it, you wouldn't have found yourself swimming in the Ramius lie about "any DT", and you would have seen that the honest reviewers suggested expansions, but the methodology (which was all included) was acceptable and ended up showing that there are measurable positional drafting tendencies, and the Bills tendencies in some cases are out of whack with good NFL teams, and very specifically in the areas of DL/TE.

 

But I did look at the study and did point out the flaws in the argument. Your study didn't account for existing roster composition, free agency moves, nor front office disarray. Without analyzing each team's roster when the season begins, the study is statistically worthless.

[I'm Spartacus]

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.

LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS!

[Ramius]

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?

 

Apparently your skill with copying and pasting is on par with your skill (or lack thereof) with statistics. Here's the quote genius.

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1013955

 

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 and second rounds.

 

And to you, i'm sure every draft is strong at the lines and weak at the skill positions.

 

Nope, you didnt cut and paste my quote to fit your little crusade at all.

[AKC]

But I did look at the study and did point out the flaws in the argument. Your study didn't account for existing roster composition, free agency moves, not front office dissaray. Without analyzing each team's roster when the season begins, the study is statistically worthless.

 

I'd welcome you to expand on the statistical findings in all the ways you propose. I specifically included the methodology with the study in the event anyone was inclinded to do just that. I look forward to having your results added to the body of knowledge here on TSW.

[AKC]

Nope, you didnt cut and paste my quote

 

Since I'm a lot more interested in all the 1st rounders you predicted in that post, I'd enjoy you sharing the list of those with us now-

 

Might be time to change shoes!

 

Another real gem- Ramius April 23-

 

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"

[Chilly]

Since I'm a lot more interested in all the 1st rounders you predicted in that post, I'd enjoy you sharing the list of those with us now-

 

Who is still writing over it now?

[GG]

I'd welcome you to expand on the statistical findings in all the ways you propose. I specifically included the methodology with the study in the event anyone was inclinded to do just that. I look forward to having your results added to the body of knowledge here on TSW.

 

I recall no less than 5 other people providing data on draft trends that proved one thing - there is no valid statistical correlation between draft trends and team's success. All you're doing is saying that Bills' drafts sucked during the Donahoe era. There's no need to concoct a half baked methodology to prove that.

[BADOLBILZ]

I recall no less than 5 other people providing data on draft trends that proved one thing - there is no valid statistical correlation between draft trends and team's success. All you're doing is saying that Bills' drafts sucked during the Donahoe era. There's no need to concoct a half baked methodology to prove that.

 

I think AKC is correct, but ultimately the best teams usually have very good quarterbacks. Having a very good/great QB changes everything. If your QB play isn't good, you need to be better on the lines to compete with the better teams. The Bills haven't had good QB play and have been below average on the lines in the past decade. No playoffs. Go figure. You guys can argue semantics with AKC all you want, but the bottom line is that he is right. The Bills have not focused enough on their line play considering their lack of presence at QB.

[Chilly]

I think AKC is correct, but ultimately the best teams usually have very good quarterbacks. Having a very good/great QB changes everything. If your QB play isn't good, you need to be better on the lines to compete with the better teams. The Bills haven't had good QB play and have been below average on the lines in the past decade. No playoffs. Go figure. You guys can argue semantics with AKC all you want, but the bottom line is that he is right. The Bills have not focused enough on their line play considering their lack of presence at QB.

 

Perhaps if he was simply saying what you did in that last sentence, he'd be correct.

[AKC]

I recall no less than 5 other people providing data on draft trends that proved one thing - there is no valid statistical correlation between draft trends and team's success. All you're doing is saying that Bills' drafts sucked during the Donahoe era. There's no need to concoct a half baked methodology to prove that.

 

As I've invited, you have my methodology: if you'd care to expand on it or provide a better way to determine draft equity by position in the first two rounds of the draft, I'm waiting with an open mind to see your work.

 

If on the other hand you're simply another of the windbags on this board who can't come up with a better way to do it, it'll explain exactly why you haven't simply shown us your "superior" study and set of results.

[MRW]

I think AKC is correct, but ultimately the best teams usually have very good quarterbacks. Having a very good/great QB changes everything. If your QB play isn't good, you need to be better on the lines to compete with the better teams. The Bills haven't had good QB play and have been below average on the lines in the past decade. No playoffs. Go figure. You guys can argue semantics with AKC all you want, but the bottom line is that he is right. The Bills have not focused enough on their line play considering their lack of presence at QB.

I would take it a step further and say you need either an exceptional skill player (QB, but also a truly standout RB or even WR could put you over the edge into playoff territory - but I'm talking Jerry Rice/Barry Sanders level) or good line play. Out of those options improving your line play is the safer bet.

 

Unfortunately I think the Bills are still paying the penalty for their penny-wise, pound-foolish DT decisions from 2001 onward. It's not as easy to find viable replacements for players like Ted Washington and Pat Williams as Tom Donahoe thought.

 

Having said that, while I agree with AKC's general argument, I do think if you want to bring in numbers to back up your intuitive analysis, you need to do it right. Otherwise you're really not advancing your cause.

[Chilly]

As I've invited, you have my methodology: if you'd care to expand on it or provide a better way to determine draft equity by position in the first two rounds of the draft, I'm waiting with an open mind to see your work.

 

If on the other hand you're simply another of the windbags on this board who can't come up with a better way to do it, it'll explain exactly why you haven't simply shown us your "superior" study and set of results.

 

Because people not doing something themselves totally means their criticism of your study is wrong.

[AKC]

if you want to bring in numbers to back up your intuitive analysis, you need to do it right.

 

Following is the methodolgy I offered for the Study I wanted to consider. I opened the original post up with this statement:

 

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.

 

I didn't represent it as anything it wasn't- in fact as you can see I didn't even represent it as conclusive in any way. Apparently though it was threatening enough to the opinions of a few posters that it became a target for their complaints about how "the would have done it". It's probably most telling that not a single one of those who insisted they had some better way have done a damn thing towards showing their "superior approach" to us. Here's the methodology I used and offered with the original post:

 

 

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.

[MRW]

I didn't represent it as anything it wasn't- in fact as you can see I didn't even represent it as conclusive in any way. Apparently though it was threatening enough to the opinions of a few posters that it became a target for their complaints about how "the would have done it". It's probably most telling that not a single one of those who insisted they had some better way have done a damn thing towards showing their "superior approach" to us. Here's the methodology I used and offered with the original post:

Well, I guess the question is, are you actually trying to convince anyone of anything, or do you just want to have a lot of numbers to throw at people to bludgeon them into submission? Because if it's the latter, then carry on as you're going. But if you're trying to build a case, you're the one making the claims and it's not anyone else's responsibility to come up with their own study. It's sufficient to show that you haven't proven anything.

 

And who's saying they have a "superior approach"? All I've seen people saying is that your method is flawed.