Jump to content


PFF Draft Grader - Bills


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,324 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:27 PM

Just for fun and amusement. Overall a pretty decent assessment, based on their criterion.

https://www.profootb...uffalo-bills-2/

#2 Green Lightning

Green Lightning

    Mr. Peanut

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,942 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:36 PM

That was well done. We were greatly aided by only being knocked -2.0 on the Maybin pick.  I understand that's the lowest you can go on the scale, but there could well have been a -5.0 for just an abysmal pick.

#3 Coach Tuesday

Coach Tuesday

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,212 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:37 PM

Additional interesting draft history stuff here:

http://www.footballo...nchise-rankings

Edited by Coach Tuesday, 02 April 2013 - 12:38 PM.


#4 Cash

Cash

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:43 PM

View PostKelly the Dog, on 02 April 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Just for fun and amusement. Overall a pretty decent assessment, based on their criterion.

https://www.profootb...uffalo-bills-2/

Yeah, can't really disagree with any of their ratings.  Maybe Wood should be a bit higher, but like they point out, he was a first-round pick, and hasn't seen the field as much as you'd want.

I enjoyed that read; thanks for passing along.

Edited by Cash, 02 April 2013 - 12:45 PM.


#5 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,324 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

View PostCash, on 02 April 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Yeah, can't really disagree with any of their ratings.  Maybe Wood should be a bit higher, but like they point out, he was a first-round pick, and hasn't seen the field as much as you'd want.

I enjoyed that read; thanks for passing along.
Yeah, for some spice, I like those kinds of ratings sometimes. It's not really about how good or bad they are, it's taking a certain stance and then evaluating everyone on an equal playing field according to that stance.

#6 Triple Threat

Triple Threat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

View PostCoach Tuesday, on 02 April 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Additional interesting draft history stuff here:

http://www.footballo...nchise-rankings

"Of course, that also suggests over 50 percent of "winning games" is unrelated to "drafting well,"

It's quotes like this that make me so frustrated.  To me it points to one simple thing.  You either have a QB or you don't.

#7 smapdi

smapdi

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 288 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:51 PM

James Hardy only caught 10 balls for 96 yards. Ouch.

I had really high hopes for that kid. Was a TD machine at Indiana averaging double digit TD's in his career there. Lets hope we have much better luck with our WR pick this year

#8 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,324 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostShhitGoose, on 02 April 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

James Hardy only caught 10 balls for 96 yards. Ouch.

I had really high hopes for that kid. Was a TD machine at Indiana averaging double digit TD's in his career there. Lets hope we have much better luck with our WR pick this year
I liked the fact we needed a tall WR especially in the red zone, in his first home game (second overall) in the fourth quarter Trent threw him a jump ball in the corner of the end zone, he lept up and made a spectacular catch and got his feet down for a TD and a game winner, and we promptly locked that away and never tried that again in his two years.

#9 smapdi

smapdi

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 288 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostKelly the Dog, on 02 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

I liked the fact we needed a tall WR especially in the red zone, in his first home game (second overall) in the fourth quarter Trent threw him a jump ball in the corner of the end zone, he lept up and made a spectacular catch and got his feet down for a TD and a game winner, and we promptly locked that away and never tried that again in his two years.

It was a great catch. I believe it was against San Diego. It was a bit mind boggling how little they tried that with him. He was 6'7" and they barely ever attempted the endzone fade route with him. All he did in college was catch TD's like that... he had 36 in 3 years.  The coaching back then was just terrible

I'm really hoping Marrone can lead us out of the dark ages of NFL coaching and game planning. After Dick Jauron and Chan Gailey, we have been subjected to some of the worst displays of coaching in football. From time management to player utilization, those coaches were just atrocious.

Edited by ShhitGoose, 02 April 2013 - 01:01 PM.


#10 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,324 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostShhitGoose, on 02 April 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

It was a great catch. I believe it was against San Diego. It was a bit mind boggling how little they tried that with him. He was 6'7" and they barely ever attempted the endzone fade route with him. All he did in college was catch TD's like that... he had 36 in 3 years.  The coaching back then was just terrible

I'm really hoping Marrone can lead us out of the dark ages of NFL coaching and game planning. After Dick Jauron and Chan Gailey, we have been subjected to some of the worst displays of coaching in football. From time management to player utilization, those coaches were just atrocious.
Jaguars.

#11 Cash

Cash

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:21 PM

View PostCoach Tuesday, on 02 April 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Additional interesting draft history stuff here:

http://www.footballo...nchise-rankings

I always enjoy reading FO, but always get angry at their arrogance and unwillingness/reluctance to question or evaluate their own methodology.  For example, this piece contains the following sentence:

Football Outsiders said:

As only 12 of the 32 franchises added value above what you would expect from the slots where they made their picks, most of the league did a below-average job at drafting from 1970 to 2007.

If 62.5% of the league is "below average", shouldn't that immediately suggest that you're using the wrong value to determine the average?  Now, it's possible that the numbers he's using are fine, and there are legitimate reasons for this: i.e., sometimes draft picks are artificially low, but never artificially high.  But that idea isn't explored or even acknowledged in the piece.  And since the author's using a statistical analysis to determine the average, rather than an arbitrary definition, there's no obvious reason why the league should be below average as a whole.  It suggests to me that his original model for draft efficiency (here) was flawed in a way that overstates expected draft value.  It doesn't mean that the author's analysis is completely meaningless, but it's infuriating to me that someone could be so obsessed with analytics and next-level thinking (i.e., "let's show how wrong the conventional wisdom is"), but never question his own methodology.

#12 hondo in seattle

hondo in seattle

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,026 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:24 PM

6 picks with positive grades.  6 with negative grades.  The rest received a neutral grade.  Seems like the success rate of the FO is mediocre - not great, not terrible.

#13 Kellyto83TD

Kellyto83TD

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,552 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:25 PM

View PostCoach Tuesday, on 02 April 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Additional interesting draft history stuff here:

http://www.footballo...nchise-rankings

No shock the Bills can't draft to save their asses.

#14 Mango

Mango

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,044 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:25 PM

Not sure how you can assign negative grades to the 200th + pick in the draft. If Wang and Easley get to break even and get picked 50-100 picks earlier, not sure how you give such a poor grade to such a poor draft position. Also I would grade Lankster as a positive, he just re-uped with the Jets, the guy has created a career after being a 6th or 7th round pick.

Nice to see the drafts broken down though

#15 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,324 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:33 PM

View PostMango, on 02 April 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Not sure how you can assign negative grades to the 200th + pick in the draft. If Wang and Easley get to break even and get picked 50-100 picks earlier, not sure how you give such a poor grade to such a poor draft position. Also I would grade Lankster as a positive, he just re-uped with the Jets, the guy has created a career after being a 6th or 7th round pick.

Nice to see the drafts broken down though
1] if the guy doesn't play at all, doesn't make the team, I can easily see why it is a negative grade.
2] I don't think they count what happens to players later in their career after they leave the team, like in the Lankster case, especially if they are just waived. I wonder what they would say about a guy, however, who was then traded for a good player. I assume that would enter into their evaluation of whether it was a positive or negative grade.

#16 Cash

Cash

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

View PostMango, on 02 April 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Not sure how you can assign negative grades to the 200th + pick in the draft. If Wang and Easley get to break even and get picked 50-100 picks earlier, not sure how you give such a poor grade to such a poor draft position. Also I would grade Lankster as a positive, he just re-uped with the Jets, the guy has created a career after being a 6th or 7th round pick.

Nice to see the drafts broken down though

I actually agree with their logic on Cox & Calloway.  In the modern/free agency era, most draft picks make the active roster as rookies, or at the very least make the practice squad.  Calloway was so bad that he didn't even survive the first wave of cuts.  That's bad even for a 7th-rounder.  

You may have a legit beef on Lankster, although I'm not sure if PFF's methodology only counts contributions for the team who drafted the player.  If it does, then I think it's about right, because Lankster didn't stick with the Bills very long.

#17 Dr. Trooth

Dr. Trooth

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:25 PM

Anyone surprised with the Moats appraisal?

Just might be interesting to see how this coaching staff utilizes him.

#18 CSBill

CSBill

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,250 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostKelly the Dog, on 02 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

I liked the fact we needed a tall WR especially in the red zone, in his first home game (second overall) in the fourth quarter Trent threw him a jump ball in the corner of the end zone, he lept up and made a spectacular catch and got his feet down for a TD and a game winner, and we promptly locked that away and never tried that again in his two years.

I think we were on the take ????

Moats, a good value . . . I don't see it
Wood should be valued higher

#19 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:04 PM

I am with you guys with Wood.  I am not saying that he should have been a 2.0 but not classified with Ellis Lankster, Cary Harris and Levi Brown.  He and Carrington should have received at least the same grade as Moats.

#20 billsfan89

billsfan89

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,044 posts

Posted 02 April 2013 - 11:30 PM

View PostCash, on 02 April 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Yeah, can't really disagree with any of their ratings.  Maybe Wood should be a bit higher, but like they point out, he was a first-round pick, and hasn't seen the field as much as you'd want.

I enjoyed that read; thanks for passing along.

I think Levitre should have been higher that's about it.