Dibs Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 The record is there for anyone honest to see- what I've said is that the best team's use a higher amounts of their early draft equity on DTs than the Bills and the Lions. Back to this again......IT IS INCORRECT! Apart from the Patriots who are undoubtedly a good team & have spent well above the average on early DT picks in recent years..... Since 2001....1st/2nd/3rd Bills 1/0/2 NYG 1/0/1 Det 0/2/1 Ind 1/0/1 Dal 0/0/1 Ari 1/1/0 Chi 1/1/0 Pit 1/0/0 Apart from the Patriots there is no correlation between early DT picking and success on the field. This does not mean that having top DTs is not important......
Chilly Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 But you looked at people who weren't approved by the supermostexcellent © methodology, and the 3rd round doesn't count, only 1st and second.
Chilly Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Use the most reasonable data and include everything in the study- but continue with your misrepresentation spam. You're much better at that than analyzing the draft! Every poster with a math background said there was no fault with the math. Nice fabrication attempt, but the facts prove you once again couldn't care about honset psoting- and consistent with your history of misrepresentations. Have you ever heard of "r-squared"?
VABills Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Okay 6 pages, and I still don't know the formula on how to draft. I can see the whole you need first round dlinemen in order to win the super bowl. Don't agree, but I can see it. But when we draft one, how do you tell if he counts or not because even though he was drafted in the 1st he doesn't count because well after 2 years and a preseason game it was deemed he really wasn't a first rounder. Can someone tell me how to tell that a lineman is really a first rounder when we draft him?
LabattBlue Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 While continuing this argument, keep in mind that this is the same AKC who until the bitter end was convinced that the BIG, STRONG ARMED, SLOW AS MOLASSES Bledsoe was the answer at QB. PS AKC will never let you get the last word in, so you might as well direct your energies elsewhere.
Ramius Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 I can see it now, "AKC the supermostexcellent © financial advisor": Customer: i am very poor, so AKC can you tell me the quickest way to get really rich? AKC: Well, i took a look at all people who went from very poor to being very rich in a short amount of time and i found out that these people spend a large amount of of their "paycheck equity" on purchasing lottery tickets. They won the lottery, and therefore became very rich. Customer: so you are telling me that i should play the lottery to get rich? AKC: yes Customer: but what about all the people who spent their money on lottery tickets and lost? AKC: i am not concerned with how people who didnt get rich spent their money. I am only concerned with how the rich people did it. The simple fact is that my supermostexcellent "statistical study" shows that the best way to go from being very poor to very rich is to buy lottery tickets and win the lottery. Customer:
VABills Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 I can see it now, "AKC the supermostexcellent © financial advisor": Customer: i am very poor, so AKC can you tell me the quickest way to get really rich? AKC: Well, i took a look at all people who went from very poor to being very rich in a short amount of time and i found out that these people spend a large amount of of their "paycheck equity" on purchasing lottery tickets. They won the lottery, and therefore became very rich. Customer: so you are telling me that i should play the lottery to get rich? AKC: yes Customer: but what about all the people who spent their money on lottery tickets and lost? AKC: i am not concerned with how people who didnt get rich spent their money. I am only concerned with how the rich people did it. The simple fact is that my supermostexcellent "statistical study" shows that the best way to go from being very poor to very rich is to buy lottery tickets and win the lottery. Customer: In his defense, the people that did win the lottery were rich.
Ramius Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 In his defense, the people that did win the lottery were rich. Yes, but thats my point. Lots of people play the lottery. Some get rich, even more stay poor. You cant say that playing the lottery is a useful investment strategy. Some teams draft high DTs a lot and win, some teams draft high DTs a lot and lose. Which means there's something else behind the success of certain teams aside from simply "draft high first round DTs and you'll win."
VABills Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Yes, but thats my point. Lots of people play the lottery. Some get rich, even more stay poor. You cant say that playing the lottery is a useful investment strategy. Some teams draft high DTs a lot and win, some teams draft high DTs a lot and lose. Which means there's something else behind the success of certain teams aside from simply "draft high first round DTs and you'll win." Of course just like lottery winners they choose wisely. It's the bad lottery players who don't pick the right numbers, just as the poor teams choose bad DT's. If you're a wise lottery player you get millions, but if not you are the Buffalo Bills /Detroit Lions of lottery players.
Ramius Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Of course just like lottery winners they choose wisely. It's the bad lottery players who don't pick the right numbers, just as the poor teams choose bad DT's. If you're a wise lottery player you get millions, but if not you are the Buffalo Bills /Detroit Lions of lottery players. The whole point is that selecting good players allows you to win, not selecting a specific position. All things being equal, focus should be on the lines. Thats a no-brainer. But lets not pretend that simply spending high picks on DTs is automatically going to make your team better. Especially when davce macbride has done some good research on the fact that good players on the DL can be acquired through FA and play a major role in a franchse's success.
Dawgg Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 The whole point is that selecting good players allows you to win, not selecting a specific position. All things being equal, focus should be on the lines. Thats a no-brainer. That is the key.
Ramius Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 That is the key. Theres a difference between not liking a pick, and then repeatedly hating on the player selected simply because you didn't like the pick.
Dawgg Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Theres a difference between not liking a pick, and then repeatedly hating on the player selected simply because you didn't like the pick. When the player's play on the field confirms why I didn't like the pick, it makes it difficult to stay quiet on the issue, particularly when I faced all kinds of ridicule when I spoke out right after the draft. At least Whitner is a team leader on and of the field... but McCargo has been an absolute oaf during his time here, most recently being fined for showing up out of shape.
Ramius Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 When the player's play on the field confirms why I didn't like the pick, it makes it difficult to stay quiet on the issue, particularly when I faced all kinds of ridicule when I spoke out right after the draft. At least Whitner is a team leader on and of the field... but McCargo has been an absolute oaf during his time here, most recently being fined for showing up out of shape. While McCargo was fined for being overweight in the spring, he showed up to camp back down to where he should be. But I agree he needs to step it up big time this year. He showed some flashes last season and needs to build upon it.
AKC Posted August 13, 2008 Author Posted August 13, 2008 I guess I don't buy it. The Raiders went to the Super Bowl in 2002 with FA DTs, as did Baltimore in 2000. Ted Washington was the best D-lineman on the field for the Pats in the 03 SB against Carolina -- more important than Seymour. Heck, even Tampa really didn't truly dominate on D-line across the board until they landed Simeon Rice. I could name many others, including the 2001 13-3 Bears, who did as well as they did because of FA fat guys. I know they may not all fall in your arbitrary survey cutoff of five years, but they're good examples of great FA d-linemen dominating for championship caliber teams. How you get 'em is unimportant and at bottom academic -- what matters is getting 'em. I think you ignore the evolution of the game. The "fast release" offense with a first and second down throw being as likely as a running play has basically negated the old, fat FA pickup who gave you immediate help in the AFC East of yore. Our division requires facing at least a 2 game series every year against a team who throws the quick strike O against us, and picking up a vet like Marcus Stroud whose best seasons are years behind him might have been a good idea in 2001 but if I'm reading the game's evolution properly it's not going to make our Bills better in 2008. In your world, we get better against short passing offenses by bringing in Stroud. In my observation, Stroud does virtually nothing to help us against the short pass. Stroud still has better line skills than any of the DTs we had on our roster last year, and that will help us against the run. But it does little to help us against the tight passing teams we need to beat if we want to have any chance to be a postseason threat. The best teams in the NFL make a higher investment of their available high draft round equity on their DLines than we do. You choose to look at other ways to explain that than simply accepting that premium DT talent is at the top of the best team's lists- while clearly being a stepchild to the Harris/Ngata/Wilfork- less Bills.
AKC Posted August 13, 2008 Author Posted August 13, 2008 Your outrageous claim that drafting DTs in round 1 = wins and super bowl victories Your act has become incredibly stale on this board. You've managed to put up almost 11,000 posts in less than 5 years here- without a single original thought outside of your "bevy of 1st round WRs" who would be drafted in 2008, without a single idea of your own- predominantly posts talking about how stupid the world or Bill's fans or people you disagree with are. Most of us who spend some time in Message Board communities understand that one of the evils of the medium will be a few losers who spend most of their waking hours bouncing from one Message Board to another with little fake cyber personalities you feel you must uphold. Your welcoming VABills as your wingman in this thread should tell most people here with anything approaching a normal life just how desperate things are in your orbit. I've come to TSW for many years to talk about football. Anyone can search back to my topics and see that football is my interest and the reason I come here. The topics under your name, on the other hand, might be confusing for the uninitiated: Multiple "Rachel Ray" posts, concerns about "wasted salt in the chip bag", not to mention the wow factor of you "Bored on Friday" topic starter. I'll bet Saturday nights are a real hoot in your life! Since the "Ignore" feature was added to TSW, I've only found one douche bag deserving of being completely dropped from consideration in any thoughtful discussions. I hope you'll find it an honor to become #2! And remember- no matter how many times you tell the lie you've tried to perpetrate about "any DT...", you're only playing to a couple of riders on the back of the short bus you commandeer with VABills. But hey- there's something homey about you nose pickers all being in one place together!
AKC Posted August 13, 2008 Author Posted August 13, 2008 Back to this again......IT IS INCORRECT! Apart from the Patriots who are undoubtedly a good team & have spent well above the average on early DT picks in recent years..... Since 2001....1st/2nd/3rd Bills 1/0/2 NYG 1/0/1 Det 0/2/1 Ind 1/0/1 Dal 0/0/1 Ari 1/1/0 Chi 1/1/0 Pit 1/0/0 Apart from the Patriots there is no correlation between early DT picking and success on the field. This does not mean that having top DTs is not important...... Unweighted views like your above offer less insight than weighted views. By weighting views (placing a higher value on the first pick in the first round versus the 30th) and more importantly considering what each team has decided to spend at the top by position, it's possible to begin to see the differences in draft strategies- or at least in the positional draft outcomes. Your static method of saying "The Browns, Browns and Panthers all used a second round pick on RB" doesn't offer us the same type of insight into the way teams are looking at the draft by position.
DonInBuffalo Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 McCargo looks like he'd rather play Will Linebacker than down in the trenches. On his first play McCargo lets Pete Kendall (who doesn't even have good footing when he pops McCargo) get under his pads and blow him off the ball. Then again, they say old habits die hard. This guy has never shown the ability to get low and play where good DTs makes their living. The second play is vintage 2007 McCargo- it's 2nd and 4 from the 5 yard line, a short yardage play with the goal line to his back. At the snap, McCargo abandons his gap- I'm guessing because when he did the same in a similar situation last year, some of the media applauded him for his lack of discipline because he got lucky and made a play. Yesterday, the odds won- Portis saw the abandoned gap and went right down to the 1 over the spot McCargo vacated. Another down later, you get to see every other Bill's DT on the ground as the whistle blows- but McCargo is up and spinning around like a top because he refuses to get down low and put his weight into the line surge. On a team that is desperate for help in the D interior, this guy who has every reason to be producing positively for us is building a resume that says something else. He just does not appear to have the appetite to fight the other big bodies along the line of scrimmage. Six pages and I'm the first to directly reply to your observations? The first play looked more/less like a stalemate to me, where McCargo and Kendall were standing there engaged with the play well to the outside of them and over before much else could happen. The second play appeared to be some sort of designed stunt. McCargo stepped away from the line almost immediately after the ball was snapped. McCargo was not "spinning around like a top" on the next play. He was engaged in another "stalemate" with Kendall, and hadn't been knocked to the ground. I know a little bit about statistics. Could someone provide a link to this "study" that's been generating so much discussion over the last few pages?
AKC Posted August 13, 2008 Author Posted August 13, 2008 I know a little bit about statistics. Could someone provide a link to this "study" that's been generating so much discussion over the last few pages? The study is linked here: Top of the Draft Positional Drafting Trends of the Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills The first play looked more/less like a stalemate to me, where McCargo and Kendall were standing there engaged with the play well to the outside of them and over before much else could happen. I see Kendall with very bad position, yet he still pops McCargo below the pads and leaves him in no position to help defend the play. The second play appeared to be some sort of designed stunt. McCargo stepped away from the line almost immediately after the ball was snapped. Two questions- A) If it's a stunt, who's the other player stunting with him? No one else leaves their gap on the play. B) It's tough to run a stunt on 2nd and 4 at the 5 yard line- a stunt is the slowest form of rushing the passer, and typically used where there's a pressure down like 3rd and long. That gives the stunt time to develop while the QB sets up and picks their long target. I'm not saying no team has ever run a stunt inside the opponent 5- but in a Preseason game it's hard to imagine it being called. Add in the fact that nobody else on our line seemed to have any call for a stunt and the odds seem pretty overwhelming that McCargo simply free-lanced.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 McCargo looks like he'd rather play Will Linebacker than down in the trenches. On his first play McCargo lets Pete Kendall (who doesn't even have good footing when he pops McCargo) get under his pads and blow him off the ball. Then again, they say old habits die hard. This guy has never shown the ability to get low and play where good DTs makes their living. The second play is vintage 2007 McCargo- it's 2nd and 4 from the 5 yard line, a short yardage play with the goal line to his back. At the snap, McCargo abandons his gap- I'm guessing because when he did the same in a similar situation last year, some of the media applauded him for his lack of discipline because he got lucky and made a play. Yesterday, the odds won- Portis saw the abandoned gap and went right down to the 1 over the spot McCargo vacated. Another down later, you get to see every other Bill's DT on the ground as the whistle blows- but McCargo is up and spinning around like a top because he refuses to get down low and put his weight into the line surge. On a team that is desperate for help in the D interior, this guy who has every reason to be producing positively for us is building a resume that says something else. He just does not appear to have the appetite to fight the other big bodies along the line of scrimmage. More so than how McCargo played, I was distressed by the play of starters Kyle Williams and Chris Kelsay. First however a little context. Washington's offensive line is perhaps the top unit in the league. With Rabach, Samuels, Jansen, Thomas, and Pete Kendall they are outstanding. Throw in starter-quality reserves like Fabini and Wade and OL coach Joe Bugel (if assistant coaches got into the hall of fame he'd be there) and the ingredients are top quality. They are also very large. That being said, they manhandled the Bills D front, particularly in my eyes (and my HD DVR's eyes too), Williams and Kelsay. Williams was tossed around like a beach ball by Kendall and Samuels and Kelsay was engulfed repeatedly and as usual, unable to generate a pass rush. Albeit he did draw a holding penalty and the Redskins only had a small handful of 7-step drops. Still, the more I rewound and replayed each play (I do this to isolate each player, and to confirm down and distance, field position, formations for both units, etc) the more I asked myself: Did the Bills really give extensions to these two players? Granted they are both (yawn) high-motor, character guys...football junkies who do everything in their power to improve. they buy into the offseason program, yada yada yada. The only problem is that neither one of them is a bona fide starter in this league. Williams again was being roughly manhandled, just blown off the line and Kelsay was a complete non-factor. Lest you think I'm just being negative, Ryan Denney and Spencer Johnson played much better than the aforementioned. Spencer has much better surge and anchor than Williams. I don't think he'll give us much when they move him to end but he appears to be an effective tackle. Ryan Denney is a much better all around player than Kelsay. He plays the run better and gets into passing lanes when he can't get the pressure. Problem is, he backs up Schobel, not Kelsay. If the Bills really wanted to start their top four, it'd be Schobel, Stroud, Spencer Johnson and Ryan Denney. Again, I'm not trying to be negative, just stating it as it looked to me. By the way, Chris Ellis looked very promising. His raw skills are obvious and he has some polish as well. I'm hopeful, verging on optimistic that he can give us a boost this year.
Recommended Posts