Our second Defensive series- Perfect example

[DonInBuffalo]

The study is linked here:

 

Top of the Draft Positional Drafting Trends of the Super Bowl Teams versus the Bills

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

Thank you for the link. No reason to comment further on the "three plays" discussion, other than to concur that something was obviously really messed up on that 2nd down play; i.e at least one person wasn't doing what the "play call" called for. "Stunt" was the wrong term. Even if McGargo was doing what the play call was, it would've been more of a weird zone blitz with a LB filling his gap.

 

 

I don't mean in any way to discount the effort you put into your study, but just at a quick glance, it contains some obvious flaws.

 

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.

1) Obviously the higher round picks are better, but to use the first two rounds only and totally disregard the rest is flawed.

2) Arbitrarily "budgeting" 64-1 is a totally invalid statistical assumption. For example, you're assuming the 63rd pick is worth twice as much as the 64th pick. A much more valid approach would've been to use some sort of draft value chart, such as this:

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html

3) see above

4) While making a roster and staying on it is important, production from high round picks is even more important. Your study doesn't appear to consider that in any way.

 

Of course, players already on the roster, and players acquired through free agency affect what positions teams take in the draft.

 

Nice effort, but in the end, the numbers really don't mean/prove anything.

[dave mcbride]

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.

In my humble opinion, Stroud has in the past been a much quicker penetrator than both Ngata and Wilfork. Whether he is now we don't know. We'll find out soon enough, so I'd refrain from relying on practice reports (which are favorable in any event, if one is to believe John Wawrow) and preseason games - where the main purpose of clear starters is to escape uninjured - to make any sweeping judgements. And as for relying on the acumen of the Jags, remember who their new defensive coordinator is. Also, a quick perusal of scouting reports suggests that scouts see his main attribute as combination of strength/agility as well as his ability to penetrate (15.5 sacks from 2002-04).

 

As for the classic big guys that you think aren't so dominant anymore, tell it to Jamal Williams, who is a better player than any of the guys you've listed above. Same goes for Pat Williams.

[Chilly]

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.

 

 

* and the worst teams.

 

4) While making a roster and staying on it is important, production from high round picks is even more important. Your study doesn't appear to consider that in any way.

 

Of course, players already on the roster, and players acquired through free agency affect what positions teams take in the draft.

 

Nice effort, but in the end, the numbers really don't mean/prove anything.

 

We've been trying to tell him that for a while now. Don't expect him to listen. Plus, there is the whole issue of teams not being able to choose where their draft picks are and plan for such an instance reliably...

[Ramius]

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!

 

I'm honored that the statistical beat down that i gave you and your "study" was so thorough and so kick-ass that it embarrassed you so much that you now feel the need to ignore me. I'm glad that the complete and utter awesomeness that was displayed in my refute of your "work" has caused you so much anguish that you will now refuse to view my posts, out of fear of being embarrassed again. But, look on the bright side. At least your keyboard is fixed so now you can type the letter R without a W appearing in front of it.

 

And as soon as i finish the pretzel bag thats currently in my desk, i am going to eat that salt as well. I'll probably start another thread about it too.

[GG]

Nice effort, but in the end, the numbers really don't mean/prove anything.

 

You don't say ....

[VOR]

Can we revisit the "comped drinks/bringing your own alcohol" argument now?

[AKC]

In my humble opinion, Stroud has in the past been a much quicker penetrator than both Ngata and Wilfork. Whether he is now we don't know. We'll find out soon enough, so I'd refrain from relying on practice reports (which are favorable in any event, if one is to believe John Wawrow) and preseason games - where the main purpose of clear starters is to escape uninjured - to make any sweeping judgements. And as for relying on the acumen of the Jags, remember who their new defensive coordinator is. Also, a quick perusal of scouting reports suggests that scouts see his main attribute as combination of strength/agility as well as his ability to penetrate (15.5 sacks from 2002-04).

 

As for the classic big guys that you think aren't so dominant anymore, tell it to Jamal Williams, who is a better player than any of the guys you've listed above. Same goes for Pat Williams.

 

We'll have to see if Stroud can get back to his great initial steps of the 2003 season- my real observation in this game was that Washington treated him as the lowest pass rush threat on our DLine when they dropped back to pass. In exactly the same circumstances, when Spencer Johnson relieved Stroud, the 'Skins doubled Johnson. It may mean nothing, but it's a trend to continue watching if it truns out he's got no burst and the rest of the league knows it.

 

The big guys are great to defend against running games, but in a division where we're looking to climb over a short passing offense the big guys don't cut it. If you're big and quick like Ngata, you can be a big contributor, but without a push on passing downs the West Coast teams will dominate the older, slower lines. I haven't watched enough Vikings ball to judge JWilliams skillset.

[dave mcbride]

We'll have to see if Stroud can get back to his great initial steps of the 2003 season- my real observation in this game was that Washington treated him as the lowest pass rush threat on our DLine when they dropped back to pass. In exactly the same circumstances, when Spencer Johnson relieved Stroud, the 'Skins doubled Johnson. It may mean nothing, but it's a trend to continue watching if it truns out he's got no burst and the rest of the league knows it.

 

The big guys are great to defend against running games, but in a division where we're looking to climb over a short passing offense the big guys don't cut it. If you're big and quick like Ngata, you can be a big contributor, but without a push on passing downs the West Coast teams will dominate the older, slower lines. I haven't watched enough Vikings ball to judge JWilliams skillset.

I don't disagree. My only point is that I'd be careful about basing anything on a preseason game where the player is a clear starter who wants to enter the season healthy.

[dave mcbride]

We'll have to see if Stroud can get back to his great initial steps of the 2003 season- my real observation in this game was that Washington treated him as the lowest pass rush threat on our DLine when they dropped back to pass. In exactly the same circumstances, when Spencer Johnson relieved Stroud, the 'Skins doubled Johnson. It may mean nothing, but it's a trend to continue watching if it truns out he's got no burst and the rest of the league knows it.

 

The big guys are great to defend against running games, but in a division where we're looking to climb over a short passing offense the big guys don't cut it. If you're big and quick like Ngata, you can be a big contributor, but without a push on passing downs the West Coast teams will dominate the older, slower lines. I haven't watched enough Vikings ball to judge JWilliams skillset.

p.s. I'm talking about Jamal Williams of the Chargers. You may be thinking of Kevin Williams, who is a helluva a penetrator (and significantly better than Tommie Harris, for my money).

[AKC]

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.

 

Thanks for taking a look at the DEs too- I was keying on the interior. I agree that the wild card inside will be whether Spencer Johnson can hold up against the run- he otherwise exhibited some good instincts. The use of him suggests the team really does intend to try to get him onto the field frequently too- so IMO he becomes the one to watch to give us some hope of improvement in providing interior pressure. The one thing I'd say in Williams defense on passing downs- outside of the quality of the Skins line, is that he was facing 2 helmets nearly every play, withteh center cheating to him most downs.

[AKC]

1) Obviously the higher round picks are better, but to use the first two rounds only and totally disregard the rest is flawed.

 

The methodology explains that the first two rounds are used to represent the "Top of the Draft". While one might argue that three rounds would be better, or the first 50 picks, the study was framed as the "top of the draft" and the use of rounds one and two still seems to reasonably represent that. If your point is that I could have instead titled it "Positional Drafting Trends in the First Two Rounds of the Draft", I'd agree that it would help avoid any confusion among readers about what the "Top of the Draft" meant.

 

2) Arbitrarily "budgeting" 64-1 is a totally invalid statistical assumption. For example, you're assuming the 63rd pick is worth twice as much as the 64th pick. A much more valid approach would've been to use some sort of draft value chart, such as this:

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html

Your use of the word "arbitrary" here seems curious to me. I don't see anything arbitrary about the quantification as I established it. The actual value of each pick is 1/64 more or less than the pick before or after- for instance, pick #1 in the draft is worth 64/64s, or 1. The next pick is worth 63/64ths, and the last pick in round 2 is worth 1/64th. Instead of being arbitrary, the gradient is exact going up or down the draft board.

 

In the first value chart you suggest, the quantification used does appear to be arbitrary. Take a look at picks 20-23. They value pick 23 at 760, pick 22 at 780 and pick 21 at 800. In their quantification, there's a total difference in "value" between picks 23 and 21 of "40" on their value chart. Now look at pick 20- they list it at 850. Their "value" jump between the 21st and 23rds picks is less overall than the value jump just between picks 21 and 20. And on their board, there are many instances of the same types of hops.

 

I don't see that they've offered their methodology anywhere to explain such dramatic swings in the values between draft picks, and short of some explanation along those lines I can't find their arbitrary type of quantification superior in any way to the exact gradient as I've proposed it. If I'm missing something there, I'm happy to take another look at it. Let me know if you see something I don't.

 

4) While making a roster and staying on it is important, production from high round picks is even more important. Your study doesn't appear to consider that in any way.

 

You're 100% correct. My study in no way studies success or failure of draft picks, nor does it in any way claim to. I very clearly identified and limited the study to the top of the draft trends positionally between the best teams versus the Bills. Success and failure are totally subjective studies, whereas by staying with the objective theme of positional draft trends, there can be no dispute about the existence of the trends. Even if we take the more arbitrary value system you proposed and applied it, the same trends will exist, simply in slightly varied overall percentages. As I also point out in the original post, identifying the trends doesn't mean these are conscious strategies or policies of NFL teams. That's up for the reveiwer to consider.

 

I learned something from the look at how good teams end up using their top picks- but that clearly doesn't mean everyone else will. If you get something from it that's great, or if you feel you can improve on it in some way I'd be very interested to see your study.

[VABills]

I'm honored that the statistical beat down that i gave you and your "study" was so thorough and so kick-ass that it embarrassed you so much that you now feel the need to ignore me. I'm glad that the complete and utter awesomeness that was displayed in my refute of your "work" has caused you so much anguish that you will now refuse to view my posts, out of fear of being embarrassed again. But, look on the bright side. At least your keyboard is fixed so now you can type the letter R without a W appearing in front of it.

 

And as soon as i finish the pretzel bag thats currently in my desk, i am going to eat that salt as well. I'll probably start another thread about it too.

I am honored to have you join my humble group. Of course that fact that we are ignored while the NJ Sues, Ices, etc... were never, means more to me. It shows that we have a better understanding of reality and the AKC associates better with the retatta makers and clown college graduates of the world.

[Ramius]

I learned something from the look at how good teams end up using their top picks*- but that clearly doesn't mean everyone else will. If you get something from it that's great, or if you feel you can improve on it in some way I'd be very interested to see your study.

 

*the worst teams too

[Dibs]

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.

Unweighted???

I was directly responding to your statement below....

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.

Apart from the Patriots your philosophy simply does not hold up.

You want to put a higher weight on the higher first rounders? No problem....it still doesn't match. It also assumes that teams can chose when they pick early to correlate with a stud DT prospect.

Who are the good teams?

Last 8 drafts....DTs in the 1st round

Bills 1x1st(26th pick)

NYG 1x1st(25th pick)

Colts 0x1st

Cowboys 0x1st

Steelers 1x1st(19th pick)

Chargers 1x1st(28th pick)

Seahawks 1x1st(23rd pick)

 

A few bad teams...

Rams 2x1st(12th & 12th)

Jets 1x1st(4th pick)

Texans 2x1st(10th & 16th)

 

Mediocre team

Eagles 2x1st(14th & 31st)

 

You statement was wrong. The Patriots are your only true example as they have drafted well above the average(the most) and have been extremely successful. One example does not a theory make.

[AKC]

You want to put a higher weight on the higher first rounders? No problem....it still doesn't match. It also assumes that teams can chose when they pick early to correlate with a stud DT prospect.

Who are the good teams?

Last 8 drafts....DTs in the 1st round

Bills 1x1st(26th pick)

NYG 1x1st(25th pick)

Colts 0x1st

Cowboys 0x1st

Steelers 1x1st(19th pick)

Chargers 1x1st(28th pick)

Seahawks 1x1st(23rd pick)

 

Let’s see if I can help you to understand major errors you’re making. The biggest one is ignoring the equity portion of the equation. I’m looking at the totality of each team’s available draft equity and how it’s being used.

 

On the other hand you’ve made the mistake of ignoring equity and instead assuming a Giant’s #25 pick at DT is the same as a Buffalo Bill’s pick of a DT at #26. The problem is that the best teams just don’t get the same number of those high picks as bad teams like the Bills, and therefore the “equity” formula I chose allows a look at the value the best teams place at positions versus our team, something you can’t see using your assumption that ignores the spend/buy equity that is clearly defined in mine.

 

If you want that in simpler terms, the best teams get less shots at the top of the draft than the poor teams. My study shows how the best teams spend as an overall percentage of their budget, yours simply shows what they spend with no reference point. You can’t reach any comparative results in your static system, whereas mine offers a chance to look into the way the war rooms of the best teams see the draft positionally.

 

Clearly this is not for simpletons- we’ve already seen a few of them leave the planet earth over this because a fairly simple application of sound mathematics is so far over their heads. But if you’d like to consider how you can gain some insight into the differences between the Bills and the best teams, there’s a chance here if you can get past some of the misconceptions you’re still hung up on.

[Dibs]

Let’s see if I can help you to understand major errors you’re making. The biggest one is ignoring the equity portion of the equation. I’m looking at the totality of each team’s available draft equity and how it’s being used.

 

On the other hand you’ve made the mistake of ignoring equity and instead assuming a Giant’s #25 pick at DT is the same as a Buffalo Bill’s pick of a DT at #26. The problem is that the best teams just don’t get the same number of those high picks as bad teams like the Bills, and therefore the “equity” formula I chose allows a look at the value the best teams place at positions versus our team, something you can’t see using your assumption that ignores the spend/buy equity that is clearly defined in mine.

 

If you want that in simpler terms, the best teams get less shots at the top of the draft than the poor teams. My study shows how the best teams spend as an overall percentage of their budget, yours simply shows what they spend with no reference point. You can’t reach any comparative results in your static system, whereas mine offers a chance to look into the way the war rooms of the best teams see the draft positionally.

 

Clearly this is not for simpletons- we’ve already seen a few of them leave the planet earth over this because a fairly simple application of sound mathematics is so far over their heads. But if you’d like to consider how you can gain some insight into the differences between the Bills and the best teams, there’s a chance here if you can get past some of the misconceptions you’re still hung up on.

Your biggest assumption is that others are 'hung up' on misconceptions. I've told you before that I believe that building the lines is IMO the most important part(apart from star QB) of having a good team......I object to your over simplification of "the best team's use a higher amounts of their early draft equity on DTs than the Bills and the Lions." It shows itself to be untrue whichever way you look at it.

 

Equity? Last 8 drafts.....

The NYG have used a #1 pick(equiv) on QB, #14 at TE, #s 20, 22 & 31 at DB......and a #25 at DT

Cowboys have had a #s 5, 8, 11, 18, 20, 22, 25 & 26 and didn't select one DT

Pit has used #11, 15 & 16 on QB, LB, DB(& going another 2 years back #s 8 & 13 on WRs)....plus used their 23, 25, 30 & 30 while only using a #19 on DT

Indy hasn't selected a DT in the 1st round at all

SD has used a #4(equiv), 5, 5, 12, 19, 27, 30 & 30 on non DTs while selecting a DT at #28

How are you figuring that the best teams are using high resources on DTs????

 

Is there even one 'good team' apart from the Patriots that has used a 'high' draft pick on a DT in the past 8 drafts????

 

The Rams & Texans have spent much greater draft equity on DTs than any 'good' team apart from the Patriots.

[DonInBuffalo]

The methodology explains that the first two rounds are used to represent the "Top of the Draft". While one might argue that three rounds would be better, or the first 50 picks, the study was framed as the "top of the draft" and the use of rounds one and two still seems to reasonably represent that. If your point is that I could have instead titled it "Positional Drafting Trends in the First Two Rounds of the Draft", I'd agree that it would help avoid any confusion among readers about what the "Top of the Draft" meant.

The point I was trying to make is that by limiting the study to the first two rounds, you are greatly limiting what conclusions that can be drawn from it. Many outstanding players weren't taken in the those rounds.

Your use of the word "arbitrary" here seems curious to me. I don't see anything arbitrary about the quantification as I established it. The actual value of each pick is 1/64 more or less than the pick before or after- for instance, pick #1 in the draft is worth 64/64s, or 1. The next pick is worth 63/64ths, and the last pick in round 2 is worth 1/64th. Instead of being arbitrary, the gradient is exact going up or down the draft board.

 

In the first value chart you suggest, the quantification used does appear to be arbitrary. Take a look at picks 20-23. They value pick 23 at 760, pick 22 at 780 and pick 21 at 800. In their quantification, there's a total difference in "value" between picks 23 and 21 of "40" on their value chart. Now look at pick 20- they list it at 850. Their "value" jump between the 21st and 23rds picks is less overall than the value jump just between picks 21 and 20. And on their board, there are many instances of the same types of hops.

 

I don't see that they've offered their methodology anywhere to explain such dramatic swings in the values between draft picks, and short of some explanation along those lines I can't find their arbitrary type of quantification superior in any way to the exact gradient as I've proposed it. If I'm missing something there, I'm happy to take another look at it. Let me know if you see something I don't.

By "arbitrary" I meant that you chose it simply because you thought it to be a reasonable model, with nothing outside of your opinion/experience to guide you. I pointed out a very obvious flaw: With your system, the 63rd pick is worth twice as much as the 64th, the 62nd pick is worth 3 times as much as the 64th, etc. That just doesn't pass the common sense test. By comparison, the chart I linked to is similar to the ones that pretty much every NFL team uses. It isn't a strict linear scale; it's much closer to exponential - reflecting the obvious fact that there's a much bigger difference between draft picks 1 vs. 10 than there is 41 vs. 50. If you look at trades made during the draft that strictly involved draft choices, most of them will very strongly correlate with that chart or others which are similar to it on other websites.

[AKC]

I pointed out a very obvious flaw: With your system, the 63rd pick is worth twice as much as the 64th, the 62nd pick is worth 3 times as much as the 64th, etc. That just doesn't pass the common sense test. By comparison, the chart I linked to is similar to the ones that pretty much every NFL team uses. It isn't a strict linear scale; it's much closer to exponential - reflecting the obvious fact that there's a much bigger difference between draft picks 1 vs. 10 than there is 41 vs. 50. If you look at trades made during the draft that strictly involved draft choices, most of them will very strongly correlate with that chart or others which are similar to it on other websites.

 

You're confusing "value" of draft picks (which is a different and subjective measure) with position of picks, which is totally objective. If we were seeking to determine values of picks you would be correct- if we wanted to say pick #4 was "this much" more valuable than pick #20, you'd probably want to include the whole draft. But the necessity in this case is to establish a simple and accurate positional value of the first 64 picks, with the notice given in the original post that any picks awarded at the end of the second round would be given the same positonal value.

 

The study is to establish the equity teams use in the first two rounds by position, so what is required is a quantification of the actual position of the picks. For accuracy, the best way to do this is with an exact and equal gradient between picks. With 64 picks the logical ways to do that are to call them 64-1 or 1-1/64th. This provides exactly what I proposed, an exact quantification of the picks in the first two rounds. This lets you go on to examine and compare equity of the selections between teams in the first two rounds.

 

On the issue of a "draft pick value" study, and realizing under any case that would be subjective, the first link you gave has pretty wild deviations with no explanation in it for the major value difference seemingly at random throughout their chart. I'm sure you can find something far more logical in assigning some average value increases across the body of the whole NFL draft if that's information you're looking for. You probably want to start with studies that provide details of their methodology, something I didn't see with that first link.

[Chilly]

Clearly this is not for simpletons- we’ve already seen a few of them leave the planet earth over this because a fairly simple application of sound mathematics is so far over their heads. But if you’d like to consider how you can gain some insight into the differences between the Bills and the best teams, there’s a chance here if you can get past some of the misconceptions you’re still hung up on.

 

 

God damn that's funny, Mr. Correlation = Causation.

[Ramius]

 

God damn that's funny, Mr. Correlation = Causation.

 

I dont know which one of AKC's arguments is the funniest, his woeful lack of intelligence of even the most simple statistics, the correlation = causation that he's stated, the ignoring of any and all control groups, or the simple fact that he doesnt think that his assignment if values to draft picks is arbitrary.