Jump to content


I Am No Scout But I Know Statistics


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 DefenseWinzChampionshipz

DefenseWinzChampionshipz

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:02 PM

I know come draft time Bills fans will either be looking for us to either move up and take a QB, sit tight and take best player available or trade down and gather more picks (since we only have six)...

I will be on the side of trading down... How about this for an idea?  I know it's not a simple thing to do like playing Madden or anything like that but if we could somehow someway find a team who would want the 8th overall pick (let's say a team picking between 10-19), we would get their 1st and 2nd round picks of this year which would give us a 1st round pick between 10-19 and two 2nd round picks...

Then also if we could trade down again with a team who picks between 21 and 32, we would also acquire their 1st and 2nd round picks which would then give us a 1st round pick between 21-32 and three 2nd round picks...

I know it's pretty rare that things like that happen and even more rare to see a move like that by OUR Bills but I would much rather a late 1st round pick (Who we can still get a good player with) and three 2nd round picks, rather than just one pick in each round (excluding the 7th round)...

It doesn't have to pan out the way I drew it up... It can even just be trading down one time simply and I believe "statistically" we have a better chance on hitting on some good players...

As my post title stated, I'm no scout... All I do is sit back and read what you guys have to say about this year's draft and from the sounds of things, you guys don't really think there is THAT much talent especially in the QB category in this year's draft so, trading down would be the only thing I'm hoping for in this year's draft...

#2 Johnny Hammersticks

Johnny Hammersticks

    You want a beer? How about some ether?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:17 PM

I would not at all be opposed to the scenario you proposed, however, I'm not sure how realistic this would be.  Certainly moving back to the 13-18 range, and picking up a 2nd round pick (and maybe even a late-round pick) seems feasible.  I don't know about the value of your second proposed move.  I think our best chance of seeing a trade-back scenario is if both Geno Smith and Matt Barkley are off the board at #8.

#3 BlueFire

BlueFire

    OU Still Sucks!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,252 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:19 PM

If you know stats, then you'll know we'll never be good until we get a QB.

#4 Bangarang

Bangarang

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,514 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:30 PM

I'm confused. Where are the stats?

#5 DefenseWinzChampionshipz

DefenseWinzChampionshipz

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:32 PM

View PostJohnny Hammersticks, on 17 March 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

I would not at all be opposed to the scenario you proposed, however, I'm not sure how realistic this would be.  Certainly moving back to the 13-18 range, and picking up a 2nd round pick (and maybe even a late-round pick) seems feasible.  I don't know about the value of your second proposed move.  I think our best chance of seeing a trade-back scenario is if both Geno Smith and Matt Barkley are off the board at #8.

I believe Barkley will be there at #8 but I highly doubt (especially with the hype he's getting lately) that Geno Smith will be there at 8... Geno is the only QB i would use the #8 pick on...

The second proposed move I suggested was from moving anywhere from 10-19 to 21-32 and picking up an ADDITIONAL 2nd rounder... We would still have a 1st rounder (late) and three 2nd round picks (which would be unlikely to happen)... But on that note I definitely would like to trade down at least once...

View PostBangarang, on 17 March 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

I'm confused. Where are the stats?

Lol... The stat is that based on our recent draft history, it would be statistically better for us to find talent with two or even three 2nd round picks rather than just one...

Edited by DefenseWinzChampionshipz, 17 March 2013 - 06:34 PM.


#6 ndirish1978

ndirish1978

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,644 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:33 PM

View PostDefenseWinzChampionshipz, on 17 March 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:


Lol... The stat is that based on our recent draft history, it would be statistically better for us to have two or even three 2nd round picks rather than just one...

So... there are NO stats? Does that mean you ARE a scout?

#7 Triple Threat

Triple Threat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:28 PM

Do scouts ever use stats or should you ever use stats without scouting?

#8 transient

transient

    Wasn't me...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:09 PM

View PostDefenseWinzChampionshipz, on 17 March 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Lol... The stat is that based on our recent draft history, it would be statistically better for us to find talent with two or even three 2nd round picks rather than just one...

So tell me this, R.A. Fisher, if we went 1 for 1 versus 1 for 2 versus 2 for 3 in draft picks in the second, which is statistically better?

Edited by transient, 17 March 2013 - 09:44 PM.


#9 bowery4

bowery4

    "‘Chance favors the prepared mind‘’

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:20 PM

View PostDefenseWinzChampionshipz, on 17 March 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

The stat is that based on our recent draft history, it would be statistically better for us to find talent with two or even three 2nd round picks rather than just one...
So you are okay with Troupe and Williams? If I remember right they were our 2nd round picks the last couple of years, no? I personally think Buddy does better high in the first round.

#10 dave mcbride

dave mcbride

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,021 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:22 PM

View PostBlueFire, on 17 March 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

If you know stats, then you'll know we'll never be good until we get a QB.
The only stat you need to know. The rest is noise.

#11 Bronc24

Bronc24

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,258 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

View Postdave mcbride, on 17 March 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:


The only stat you need to know. The rest is noise.

View PostBlueFire, on 17 March 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

If you know stats, then you'll know we'll never be good until we get a QB.

Yep.  One thing not mentioned much here concerning the Buddy / Dominick convo is where Dominick mentioned Grigson getting a QB (Luck) makes him look like a genius for a decade.

#12 Dibs

Dibs

    Myth Buster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,967 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

To go with a theme currently running in an off the wall thread.....

I find it ironic that somebody with the name DefenseWinzChampionshipz professes to know statistics. :P



In relation to the actual OP point.  As far as I can figure it(difficult to do as no actual statistics were presented.....and the point was sort of hidden in there)......the point is relatively correct.  The percentages for finding solid players would likely be a fair deal better with multiple trade downs.  The percentages however for finding an Elite player would likely be far less with multiple trade down.


Also, the OP doesn't state where they would recommend taking the QB that we desperately need, after their trade down(s).  Again, statistics show some very marked numbers in this area.

#13 Meathead

Meathead

    certified meatrosexual

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

a compelling statistical argument if i ever saw one

#14 FireChan

FireChan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,435 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:39 PM

Best topic on TBD in months.  How did we overlook such genius for 669 posts?

View Postndirish1978, on 17 March 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

So... th

View PostMeathead, on 17 March 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:


a compelling statistical argument if i ever saw one
Th
ere are NO stats? Does that mean you ARE a scout?

View PostTriple Threat, on 17 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:


Do scouts ever use stats or should you ever use stats without scouting?

Gold, gold and gold.

#15 uncle flap

uncle flap

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:53 PM

Dibs nailed it.

Probability-wise, the more players they draft, the more chances they get at having a player that pans out.

However, in general, the lower the pick, the lower the odds of that particular pick panning out.

So in a vacuum, it's basically wash.

The question is: Would you prefer quality over quantity?

Not to bash the OP at all because it's an interesting idea (though a little convoluted the way it was presented), but it would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of draft position vs performance.


Here's some food for thought:

http://www.sph.umn.e.../rr2010-022.pdf

http://harvardsports...fl-draft-picks/

#16 KOKBILLS

KOKBILLS

    Master of My Domain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,266 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:12 PM

View PostDibs, on 17 March 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

To go with a theme currently running in an off the wall thread.....

I find it ironic that somebody with the name DefenseWinzChampionshipz professes to know statistics. :P



In relation to the actual OP point.  As far as I can figure it(difficult to do as no actual statistics were presented.....and the point was sort of hidden in there)......the point is relatively correct.  The percentages for finding solid players would likely be a fair deal better with multiple trade downs.  The percentages however for finding an Elite player would likely be far less with multiple trade down.


Also, the OP doesn't state where they would recommend taking the QB that we desperately need, after their trade down(s).  Again, statistics show some very marked numbers in this area.

I'm guessing that (in general) NFL FO's that have a strong belief in their Scouting Dept, and their ability to find players are far more willing to risk trading down...If you have belief, more picks means more chances to hit a home run...There are very good NFL players Drafted well into the 2nd round on average...Sure the odds of finding a quality starter decline rapidly as you move down, but I think the good FO's don't worry about that as much if they think it's the right time to do it...

Admittedly I'm unsure of the statistics on this theory... 0:)

And just to throw my meaningless 2 cents into this...If The Bills did trade down I think it allows them better flexibility so they can take a QB with their 1st pick...I've said for a while if Geno is gone I would like to see them bail out of #8 and get the best deal they can...Then take a QB wherever they end up in the 1st...I know there is risk involved...But that's just me... B-)

Edited by KOKBILLS, 17 March 2013 - 11:13 PM.


#17 FeartheLosing

FeartheLosing

    Just awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,637 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:31 PM

If you listened to any of the scouts talk about this years draft class you would have heard there isn't very many defined "blue chip" players in this years draft. Also scouts are saying that this year the #10 pick doesn't hold that much value over the #20 pick in terms of player grades. But overall it is a very good draft class with an abundance of talent at many positions.

So, unlike past years where teams might covet a top ten pick. It just won't be that valuable this year.

Besides, if you know and understand Buddy Nix (he isn't the sharpest tool in the box) He has stated he doesn't like to trade his picks and prefers to take the players that "fall" to him. Which in this years draft will most likely be a reach for a QB despite there being 3 top LT's in the top ten.

This years BPA at #8 will probably be a LT-G-OLB. JMO

#18 Nitro

Nitro

    "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way. " Patton

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:52 PM

Trade back to the mid first and picking up a 2nd or a 3rd would still land us a QB. I doubt the scenario laid out would happen.  If it did, the Bills could build a solid foundation for the future.  This draft class has been described as having a few blue chippers but loaded in quality talent.  A deep draft class.

Edited by Nitro, 17 March 2013 - 11:59 PM.


#19 DefenseWinzChampionshipz

DefenseWinzChampionshipz

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:08 AM

View Posttransient, on 17 March 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

So tell me this, R.A. Fisher, if we went 1 for 1 versus 1 for 2 versus 2 for 3 in draft picks in the second, which is statistically better?

Percentage wise 1 for 1 would be better... NFL team wise 2 for 3 would be better for adding 2 new starters to a 53 man squad...

View PostFireChan, on 17 March 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Best topic on TBD in months.  How did we overlook such genius for 669 posts?

[size=4]

Gold, gold and gold.

You're the only genius I see around here...

View Postbowery4, on 17 March 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

So you are okay with Troupe and Williams? If I remember right they were our 2nd round picks the last couple of years, no? I personally think Buddy does better high in the first round.

Isn't it the talk of the town that Buddy "won't" be handling the draft picking duties this year?

View PostDibs, on 17 March 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:


To go with a theme currently running in an off the wall thread.....

I find it ironic that somebody with the name DefenseWinzChampionshipz professes to know statistics. :P



In relation to the actual OP point.  As far as I can figure it(difficult to do as no actual statistics were presented.....and the point was sort of hidden in there)......the point is relatively correct.  The percentages for finding solid players would likely be a fair deal better with multiple trade downs.  The percentages however for finding an Elite player would likely be far less with multiple trade down.


Also, the OP doesn't state where they would recommend taking the QB that we desperately need, after their trade down(s).  Again, statistics show some very marked numbers in this area.

You got a point on that... Maybe I should have just named the thread "I am no scout but..." and left it at that minus the statistic part... But about your "when we should get a QB statement you made, we can easily grab a QB with our 1st round pick if we had three 2nd round picks after that... We can grab a QB with the 1st round pick if we even had TWO 2nd round picks after that...

Edited by DefenseWinzChampionshipz, 18 March 2013 - 12:09 AM.


#20 Numark

Numark

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:12 AM

would having 32 picks in the 7th round produce a higher probability of finding successful players than having 10 picks in the first round.  


BOOM