Buffalo Bills


Bill traded up to pick 7 to get QB Josh Allen.

Josh Allen Trade
Buffalo Bills Buccaneers Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
7 32 12 35
53 22
56 19
Total 32 Total 76
44 2.38

~~~
The Cards moved up to pick 10 to draft Josh Rosen
~~~

Josh Rosen Trade
Cardinals Raiders Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
10 41 15 28
79 18
152 9
Total 41 Total 55
14 1.34

~~~
Saints move up to get Marcus Davenport, DE
~~~

Marcus Davenport Trade
Saints Packers Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
14 29 27 25
147 8
(25) 24
Total 29 Total 57
28 1.97

~~~
Bills go up to get Tremaine Edmunds
~~~

Tremaine Edmunds Trade
Bills Ravens Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
16 32 22 27
154 12 65 21
Total 44 Total 48
4 1.09

~~~
Packers trade again to get Jaire Alexander
~~~

Jaire Alexander Trade
Packers Seahawks Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
18 29 27 25
248 5 76 17
188 5
Total 34 Total 47
13 1.38

~~~
Titans trade up for Rashaan Evans
~~~

Jaire Alexander Trade
Packers Seahawks Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
18 29 27 25
248 5 76 17
188 5
Total 34 Total 47
13 1.38

~~~
Ravens trade 2019 assets to get their QB
~~~

Lamar Jackson Trade
Ravens Eagles Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
32 23 52 22
132 11 125 15
(48) 25
Total 34 Total 62
28 1.82
Advertisements

This would have been done earlier, but Pro Football Reference dropped its very handy chart of draft position versus AV. I started missing it more and more, and using the Wayback Machine I found it here.

The three major QB trades of 2017 were the trade for Mitch Trubisky, Patrick Mahomes, and Deshaun Watson. We will analyze them in sequence.

Mitchell Trubisky Trade
Chicago Bears 49ers Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
2 46 3 45
67 19
111 12
(71) 21
Total 46 Total 97
51 2.11

 

The Bears have a trade risk comparable to a typical trade for a #1 draft choice and a quarterback at that. The trade has less fundamental risk than Goff or Wentz. The comparable that comes to mind is Eli Manning. By contrast, the delta AV of the other two trades are substantially less.

Patrick Mahomes Trade
Chiefs Bills Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
10 41 27 25
91 17
(25) 24
Total 41 Total 66
25 1.61

 
Mahomes merely has to give six seven good years, and the trade ends up warranted. The issue in the case of Deshaun Watson is keeping him upright. A fistful of whole years almost as good as his freshman year in the NFL and he would end up bordering on Hall of Fame numbers.

Deshaun Watson Trade
Texans Browns Results
Pick Average AV Pick Average AV Delta AV Risk Ratio
12 35 25 24
4 44
Total 35 Total 68
33 1.94

 

So here is wishing Deshaun Watson a healthy career from now on.

In Brian Burke’s recent roundup, he references a Fifth Down blog article on Rex Ryan’s philosophy of offense, one where running is heavily emphasized and the yardage? Not so much. He then says that as an offensive philosophy, it seems to be “ridiculous”, except in the metaphoric sense of a boxer, with a jab, using the run to keep an opponent off balance, so that he can lay out the “killing blow”.

I tend to think that Brian’s boxing metaphor is, at best, an incomplete picture. For one, he doesn’t see the jab as a knockout punch, but for Muhammad Ali, it was. Another point is the jab is fast, elusive, confusing. By contrast, the run is a slow play, and there is nothing particularly elusive or confusing about the run. Rex-like coaches often run when it is most expected.

The way Rex is using the run, in my opinion, is closely tied to the way Bill Parcells used to use the run, especially in the context of Super Bowl 25. This New York Times article, about Super Bowl 25, details Parcells’ view of the philosophy neatly.

Parcells' starting running backs averaged about 3.7 ypc throughout his NFL coaching career.

To quote Bill:

“I don’t know what the time of possession was,” the Giants’ coach would say after the Giants’ 20-19 victory over the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV. “But the whole plan was try to shorten the game for them.”

The purpose, of course, is time control, optimizing time of possession, and thus reducing the opportunity of the opposing offense to have big plays. It’s a classic reaction to an opponent’s big play offense, to their ability to create those terrific net yards per attempt stats [1].

Note also Rex is primarily a defensive coach. If the game changing, explosive component of a football team is the defense, doing everything to suppress the opponent’s offense only hands more tools to the defensive team. It forces the opponent’s offense to take risks to score at all. It makes them go down the field in the least amount of time possible. It takes the opponents out of their comfort zone, especially if they are used to large, early leads.

The value of time, though, is hard to quantify.  Successful time control is folded into stats like WPA, and thus is highly situation dependent. The value of such a strategy is very hard to determine with our current set of analytic tools. Total time of possession no more captures the real value of time any more than total running yards captures the real value of the running game in an offense.

Chris, from Smart Football, says that the classic tactic for a less talented team (a “David”) facing a more talented team (a “Goliath”) is to use plenty of risky plays, to throw the outcome into a high risk, high reward, high  variance regime. The opposite approach, to minimize the scoring chances of the opposition, is a bit neglected in Chris’s original analysis, because he assumed huge differences in talent. However, he explicitly includes it here, as a potential high variance “David” strategy.

It’s ironic to think of running as the strategy of an underdog, but that’s what it is in this instance. New England is the 500 pound gorilla in the AFC East, ranked #1 on offense 2 of the last 4 years, and that’s the team he has to beat. And think about it more, just a college analogy for now: what teams do you know, undersized and undermanned,  that use a ground game to keep them in the mix? It’s the military academies, teams like Army, Navy, and the Air Force, using ground based option football.

[1] The down side of a loose attitude towards first and second down yardage is that it places an emphasis on third down success rate, and thus execution in tough situations.

I can’t say for certain if the 1991 Super Bowl (highlights here, DVD here) contains the oldest nickel front in the world, as there is a side of me that  thinks the Miami 4-3 is a thinly disguised 2-3-6 – think about it, using what kinds of players are placed where, as opposed to what kinds of names the positions are called. Isn’t a Miami 4-3 equivalent to this:

And not all that far removed from this:

Just sayin’.

In the book “Education of a Coach“, by David Halberstam, a book about Bill Belichick, and a decent read, Halberstam goes into great detail about  the base nickel front that Belichick used in the 1991 Super Bowl. And yes, isn’t this, the first offensive play of the Bowl, an argument that Belichick is your nickel front daddy?

I say, who is your nickel front daddy?

Halberstam says this defense was, in modern terms, a 2-3 dime. Of course,  with Lawrence Taylor as the rush linebacker, it was a rather stout 2-3.

Miami 4-3 notes..

  • This thread from Football Futures, I think, is one of the better reads on the Miami 4-3.
  • Coach Hoover: Miami 4-3 versus the flexbone.
  • Coach Huey: Miami 4-3 compared to the K State 4-3.
  • Fifth Down Blog on the 4-3 (including the Miami). The whole guide summarized here.
  • Linebackers in the Miami 4-3.