Chilly Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Studying the drafting trends of the way bad teams approach the Top of the Draft versus the Buffalo Bills (one of only 4 teams in the NFL to have missed the playoffs this Millennium) may offer some insight into why we’ve been one of the consistently bad teams in the league for an extended period of time. Using the draft records of bad teams 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 bad teams target at the Top of the Draft versus the positions the Buffalo Bills have been drafting. The methodology used for the study follows the primary trending results. A comparison of Bad Team Draft Budgets versus the Bills looks like this: Bad Teams: Cardinals, Lions, Dolphins, Browns, Texans, Vikings, Raiders, 49ers, Ravens, Titans, Chiefs, Saints, Falcons, Panthers, Rams, Bengals % of Draft Top of the Budget by Position: Bad Teams QB - 8.30% RB - 9.12% WR - 12.50% TE - 3.84% OL - 13.85% DL - 21.59% LB - 13.07% DB - 17.53% Bills QB - 8% RB - 20% WR - 18% TE - 0% OL - 12% DL - 16% LB - 6% DB - 20% Buffalo has “outspent” the bad teams at RB and WR while “under spending” them at DL and LB. Bills have spent a higher ratio of their budget on WRs and RBs versus DL, bucking the Bad Team trend of loading up on DL at the Top of the Draft. Bad teams are spending over 21%- or over a fifth of their Top of the Draft Budget- on DL, while the Bills have committed less than 16%. 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) “Bad Teams” will be NFL teams who have not made the playoffs at least twice in the last 4 seasons. Requiring teams to make the playoffs twice eliminates fluky teams that made the playoffs one year, only to be sub par the other three. 6) Positions- Positions are defined by: DL, DB, WR, OL, TE, RB, LB and QB. However, for fun, lets compare the Bad Teams with the Super Bowl teams: Bad Teams QB - 8.30% RB - 9.12% WR - 12.50% TE - 3.84% OL - 13.85% DL - 21.59% LB - 13.07% DB - 17.53% Super Bowl Teams QB - 6% RB - 8% WR - 14% TE - 9% OL - 12% DL - 23% LB - 7% DB - 21% Bad Teams have “outspent” the Super Bowl teams at LB while “under spending” them at TE and DB, and in all other positions (including DL) they were pretty close.
Beerball Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 We don't pay our TE's? We don't take any in the first 2 rounds of the draft. (at least I think that's what it means)
apuszczalowski Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 This is an interesting point of view, but it really means absolutly nothing when it comes to winning an losing. Good teams usually don't need the same type of players as bad teams do. It is kind of funny to see that the Bills really don't draft many more DB's then other teams early, like some would make us think The real reason why the Bills continue to miss the playoffs, they are still trying to clean up the 5 year mess that was the Donahoe regime. That was a big mess they were left with, and with the revolving door at coach and QB, its hard to get the consistency you need in order to build a winner. Hopefully this regime has them on the right track now and they have started to build a winner, cause the biggest factor in winning or losing starts at the top of the FO, the GM. If they are not good, the team will suffer, and its not always a quick fix.
WellDressed Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 This is an interesting point of view, but it really means absolutly nothing when it comes to winning an losing. Good teams usually don't need the same type of players as bad teams do. It is kind of funny to see that the Bills really don't draft many more DB's then other teams early, like some would make us thin so bad players need good teams?? JP Losman = Bust
keepthefaith Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 so bad players need good teams?? JP Losman = Bust Bust = Canton
finknottle Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Eh - things skew too easily. The problem is that if you draft a player who is a bust, you usually have to turn around and draft another at the same position, making it look like you 'foolishly' have been overspending there. Quite a few teams get stuck on the 1st round-qb-goround, through no fault of their own. Or more precisely, because of bad talent evaluation, not drafting strategy.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 When TD brought in Greggo, the Bills had a very good defense. Instead of fixing the offense which was the weak point of the team, Greggo dismantled the D to install his own Defense. I think that set this team back more than anything else.
silvermike Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 I don't know - I think it's hard to prove that drafting a certain position means anything with that methodology. The top teams and the bottom ones are essentially the same - I'd probably explain the rest with random chance.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Bad teams have to draft glamor boys to keep their whining fans and media happy. Good teams draft good players. PTR
BADOLBILZ Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 This is an interesting point of view, but it really means absolutly nothing when it comes to winning an losing. Good teams usually don't need the same type of players as bad teams do. It is kind of funny to see that the Bills really don't draft many more DB's then other teams early, like some would make us think The real reason why the Bills continue to miss the playoffs, they are still trying to clean up the 5 year mess that was the Donahoe regime. That was a big mess they were left with, and with the revolving door at coach and QB, its hard to get the consistency you need in order to build a winner. Hopefully this regime has them on the right track now and they have started to build a winner, cause the biggest factor in winning or losing starts at the top of the FO, the GM. If they are not good, the team will suffer, and its not always a quick fix. That's right, good teams don't need the same type of players that bad teams do. Most often, quarterbacks. As I stated in a post about AKC's analysis, having a very good QB changes how you draft. If you don't have a very good QB, you'd better be strong on the lines and be prepared to win games at the LOS against teams like NE or Indy. You'll still probably lose, but at least you have a fighting chance by virtue of brute force. The axiom about games being won at the LOS is still correct, but it dates back to a time when the playing field at the QB position was more level. Now, games are won at the LOS if you don't have a great QB. The point of my post is that pinpointing what positions the Bills draft and comparing them to every other team is pointless if it's not in context. The context being what did those teams already have in place? The Bills have not had a full season of good QB play since 1995, yet they tend to draft like a team that is adding the final pieces of the puzzle. The only winning season they've had this decade was a season where they were loaded on the DL and had huge athletic offensive tackles and Jason Peters at blocking TE.
Bill from NYC Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 That's right, good teams don't need the same type of players that bad teams do. Most often, quarterbacks. As I stated in a post about AKC's analysis, having a very good QB changes how you draft. If you don't have a very good QB, you'd better be strong on the lines and be prepared to win games at the LOS against teams like NE or Indy. You'll still probably lose, but at least you have a fighting chance by virtue of brute force. The axiom about games being won at the LOS is still correct, but it dates back to a time when the playing field at the QB position was more level. Now, games are won at the LOS if you don't have a great QB. The point of my post is that pinpointing what positions the Bills draft and comparing them to every other team is pointless if it's not in context. The context being what did those teams already have in place? The Bills have not had a full season of good QB play since 1995, yet they tend to draft like a team that is adding the final pieces of the puzzle. The only winning season they've had this decade was a season where they were loaded on the DL and had huge athletic offensive tackles and Jason Peters at blocking TE. And so few understand this. We are a relatively small and weak team which plays outdoors, in the cold, and is stacked with return men and a bevy of OK defensive backs. What happens if McCorner isn't a top flight cb? Do we try again in round 1? What do we do when Simpson sucks? Grab a first round safety? ? How about when Whitner leaves town? Replace him with another #8? What amazes me is that TBD is imo the fanatical section of the Bills fan base, and people fail to see that the Levy/Jauron method is a one way ticket to disaster. Now, it has spilled over from draft stupidity to not locking up our best player, who happens to be a pro bowl left tackle. Anybody can quote all the obscure stats one wishes , but the bottom line is that Levy and Jauron are two people that were/are in over their heads. Brandon? Who is he? The sad part is that we really should have a decent team this season. Maybe we still have a shot; who is to say? At least we might have a good secondary.
Hossage Posted August 14, 2008 Posted August 14, 2008 Player development makes some franchises perennially successful. In the donahue era we brought in aging veterans and swapped players and coaches faster than chipmunks on meth. This is unlike the steelers, who are the model of development. They draft players with potential and value and keep them. They bring in very few veteran free agents, and they have been consistently successful. We have had more stability recently and especially last year our younger guys got plenty of time. Jauron seems to get this team to perform and have a good attitude. I disagree with our offensive and defensive philosophies, but not turning the ball over or getting penalties goes a long way. Even with play calling that must have been drawn up during an all night benedictine and cough syrup drinking session, a halfling team halved again by injuries, and brett farve wannabe losman we still managed a respectable season. It wouldnt take much to get better than last year, and we have a chance to.
Dibs Posted August 14, 2008 Posted August 14, 2008 Eh - things skew too easily. The problem is that if you draft a player who is a bust, you usually have to turn around and draft another at the same position, making it look like you 'foolishly' have been overspending there. Quite a few teams get stuck on the 1st round-qb-goround, through no fault of their own. Or more precisely, because of bad talent evaluation, not drafting strategy. So simple......yet seemingly incomprehensible to some
Chilly Posted August 14, 2008 Author Posted August 14, 2008 Eh - things skew too easily. The problem is that if you draft a player who is a bust, you usually have to turn around and draft another at the same position, making it look like you 'foolishly' have been overspending there. Quite a few teams get stuck on the 1st round-qb-goround, through no fault of their own. Or more precisely, because of bad talent evaluation, not drafting strategy. You won't get an argument from me here. The point of this post was one of pointing out one aspect of what's wrong with AKC's whole argument.
Ramius Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 You won't get an argument from me here. The point of this post was one of pointing out one aspect of what's wrong with AKC's whole argument. again, good work.
Recommended Posts