Re-tuned Mock [Archive] - BillsZone.com

View Full Version : Re-tuned Mock

JCBills

02-15-2010, 11:51 PM

PECKERWOOD

02-16-2010, 02:21 AM

Maybe a bit unrealistic but I'll play along, I kept the picks that I like:

1 - Charles Brown, LT, USC (One of the more athletic tackles in the draft, perfect for the ZBs scheme)
2 - Terrence Cody, NT, Alabama (In the mold of Shaun Rodgers, may slide due to his weight)
2 - Brandon Spikes, ILB, Florida (Thumper in the middle next to Poz)
3 - Dan LeFevour, QB, Central Michigan (We both like this guy, cool, we agree here.)
3 - Ciron Black, RT, LSU (A leader amongst linemen, good football player, one of my favorite RTs in the draft)
4 - Eric Decker, WR, Minnesota (Good receiver, cerebral player, ex QB)
4 - Jermaine Cunningham, OLB, Florida (I like him, good player, I'm sure everybody here has seen him play at one time or another)
5 - Kade Weston, DL, Georgia (Underrated prospect, I had the chance to watch him play a couple times last year)
6 - Matt Kopa, OT, Stanford (I know everybody here is sick of all the ivy leaguers but this one is actually worth the weight)
7 - DeMarcus Granger, DL, Oklahoma (Talented player, character issues & injury issues)
7 - Juice Williams, QB, Illinois (Talented player but may not be a QB at the next level, but still a specimen and I like that so I'm taking him here)

YardRat

02-16-2010, 03:02 AM

I really don't want a 'maybe' or 'tweener' in the first round. Like the third and fourth rounders.

Bravo82

02-16-2010, 03:35 AM

nobody cares.

JCBills

02-16-2010, 04:52 AM

I really don't want a 'maybe' or 'tweener' in the first round. Like the third and fourth rounders.

Don't want to fill a major need in the 1st?

Night Train

02-16-2010, 05:06 AM

A major need in the first two rounds is the lines. Winning organizations build from the lines out.

LT, NT..that's our major needs in the first 2 rounds. Then LB.

Bravo82

02-16-2010, 06:08 AM

and I might add, this mock is usless without Timothy Tebow.

SquishDaFish

02-16-2010, 06:20 AM

Great job with the work. But all those trades wont happen

dannyek71

02-16-2010, 06:37 AM

I love how every year people have this trade and that trade.....This isn't madden on your Super Nintendo people.

We will trade up into the 1st for a guy who was a reach in the 4th. That is my prediction.

Mahdi

02-16-2010, 07:29 AM

JCBills

02-16-2010, 09:41 AM

Great job with the work. But all those trades wont happen

Including them actually makes it more realistic than a non-trade involved mock.

DraftBoy

02-16-2010, 10:55 AM

Including them actually makes it more realistic than a non-trade involved mock.

No it makes it far less realistic. Let me show you why;

9th (1350 Points)

for

21st (800 Points), 54 (360 Points), and 2011 6th (20 points)

So in that trade alone we lost 170 points or the equivalent of a mid to late 3rd Round pick.

KC 4th for Whitner...not a bad trade but KC has Mike Brown at SS who was a good player for them last year 103 tackles, 2 sacks, and 3 INTs. They need a FS not a SS. That trade doesn't make sense for KC.

Chicago 3rd for Kyle Williams....Williams doesn't fit our 3-4 system you're right but why would the Bears want him? Tommie Harris, Jarron Gilbert, Anthony Adams, Marcus Harrison, and Israel Idonjie are already their 5 deep rotation. They have no need for another DT at this point. Especially since they play to develop Gilbert.

JCBills

02-16-2010, 01:52 PM

No it makes it far less realistic. Let me show you why;

9th (1350 Points)

for

21st (800 Points), 54 (360 Points), and 2011 6th (20 points)

So in that trade alone we lost 170 points or the equivalent of a mid to late 3rd Round pick.

KC 4th for Whitner...not a bad trade but KC has Mike Brown at SS who was a good player for them last year 103 tackles, 2 sacks, and 3 INTs. They need a FS not a SS. That trade doesn't make sense for KC.

Chicago 3rd for Kyle Williams....Williams doesn't fit our 3-4 system you're right but why would the Bears want him? Tommie Harris, Jarron Gilbert, Anthony Adams, Marcus Harrison, and Israel Idonjie are already their 5 deep rotation. They have no need for another DT at this point. Especially since they play to develop Gilbert.
It was in reference to including trades in general considering how many moves are made come draft day.

Whitner was playing pretty well at FS this past season before going down, basically it's dealing him to a team in need of secondary help rather than a specific one, but I did it anyways because I'm just such a rebel. (lol) Even then Mike Brown is 32.

Let's have a look at KC's safety play.

Mike Brown -

Thrown at: 27 times
Opposing QB rating when thrown at: 68.2
Snaps: 1,106
Run D Value: -4.0
Pass D Value: -5.6
Missed Tackles: 10
Stops/Stuffs: 33

Jon McGraw -

Thrown at: 18 times
Opposing QB rating when thrown at: 119.0
Snaps: 610
Run D Value: -3.9
Pass D Value: -6.4
Missed Tackles: 6
Stops/Stuffs: 14

The backups had weak metrics as well.

Vs. Donte playing FS, SS, and Nickel

Thrown at: 29 times
Opposing QB rating when thrown at: 58.1
Snaps: 608
Run D Value: -4.1
Pass D Value: 1.8
Missed Tackles: 3
Stops/Stuffs: 15

Instant upgrade at either spot for them, not saying this trade will happen, but KC is a fit, that isn't the point though, I just think Whitner is decent trade bait.

Because Chicago has 5 DTs they won't make a move? They wouldn't look to upgrade over Anthony Adams? Looking to develop Gilbert doesn't mean they won't take an instant upgrade over their current situation?

You have to realize you can't go by the value charts exactly, it almost never works out that way. I could have made the 6th a 5th sure, or made it a 2010 pick, but no need to nitpick.
I know it didn't value out perfectly.

DraftBoy

02-16-2010, 03:15 PM

It was in reference to including trades in general considering how many moves are made come draft day.

Whitner was playing pretty well at FS this past season before going down, basically it's dealing him to a team in need of secondary help rather than a specific one, but I did it anyways because I'm just such a rebel. (lol) Even then Mike Brown is 32.

Let's have a look at KC's safety play.

Mike Brown -

Thrown at: 27 times
Opposing QB rating when thrown at: 68.2
Snaps: 1,106
Run D Value: -4.0
Pass D Value: -5.6
Missed Tackles: 10
Stops/Stuffs: 33

Jon McGraw -

Thrown at: 18 times
Opposing QB rating when thrown at: 119.0
Snaps: 610
Run D Value: -3.9
Pass D Value: -6.4
Missed Tackles: 6
Stops/Stuffs: 14

The backups had weak metrics as well.

Vs. Donte playing FS, SS, and Nickel

Thrown at: 29 times
Opposing QB rating when thrown at: 58.1
Snaps: 608
Run D Value: -4.1
Pass D Value: 1.8
Missed Tackles: 3
Stops/Stuffs: 15

Instant upgrade at either spot for them, not saying this trade will happen, but KC is a fit, that isn't the point though, I just think Whitner is decent trade bait.

Because Chicago has 5 DTs they won't make a move? They wouldn't look to upgrade over Anthony Adams? Looking to develop Gilbert doesn't mean they won't take an instant upgrade over their current situation?

You have to realize you can't go by the value charts exactly, it almost never works out that way. I could have made the 6th a 5th sure, or made it a 2010 pick, but no need to nitpick.
I know it didn't value out perfectly.

Your premise is right and wrong, yes many moves are made during the draft, but many of those moves cannot possibly be perdicted so trying to do so are just as futile (one could even argue more so) than not perdicting them. Thus making it even less realistic, really its a semantics argument, and I break it down like this. I refuse to mock trades so if one happens it doesnt screw up my mock all up, if I mocked one though and it doesnt happen it throws everything else off.

Whitner is an improvement over McGraw but is it worth a 4th Round pick, you only reinforce my previous notion with your metrics argument. Basically the only thing Whitner add is a positive Pass D number but is worse in the run game. Besides that Metrics isn't even a completely fair measure given contract status, bonus money, scheme type, injury history and many other factors that metrics doesn't apply in. Its simply a more complicated way of looking at statistics, its far more interesting yes but trying to base some sort of logical conclusion specifically involving a players trade value based solely on that is a reach that I wouldn't take.

What does adding a 6th DT get Chicago? Teams don't just make moves to make them, they have to have a logical reason to make them, you know that. Improving on their 5th DT isn't going to be worth a 3rd Round pick to somebody. The Bears have two young DT's they are trying to develop in Gilbert and Harrison, and adding a 6th DT and taking more snaps away from them is not going to help that. It would essentially be flushing draft picks away. Find a 4-3 team in need of a DT and yea maybe they give Williams a shot, but not somebody who already has a solid rotation.

Im aware that it doesnt work out exactly but how often do you think a team underpays by over 100 points to move up 12 spots in the 1st round? If anything they have to overpay. Hence the use of the values, if the Bills made the move that you suggested they should and would get slaughtered for it. You don't move down out of the top 20 from the top 10 and not get at least close to exact value for it, if anything you ask for over value. 12 spots is a huge drop for us to make, with big time risk involved. And please save the penis measuring. I dont know why you would of taken my comments to be condenscending, that's not how they were meant, now we can either discuss this and continue what was developing into a good discussion or we can end it here.

JCBills

02-16-2010, 03:41 PM

Your premise is right and wrong, yes many moves are made during the draft, but many of those moves cannot possibly be perdicted so trying to do so are just as futile (one could even argue more so) than not perdicting them. Thus making it even less realistic, really its a semantics argument, and I break it down like this. I refuse to mock trades so if one happens it doesnt screw up my mock all up, if I mocked one though and it doesnt happen it throws everything else off.

Whitner is an improvement over McGraw but is it worth a 4th Round pick, you only reinforce my previous notion with your metrics argument. Basically the only thing Whitner add is a positive Pass D number but is worse in the run game. Besides that Metrics isn't even a completely fair measure given contract status, bonus money, scheme type, injury history and many other factors that metrics doesn't apply in. Its simply a more complicated way of looking at statistics, its far more interesting yes but trying to base some sort of logical conclusion specifically involving a players trade value based solely on that is a reach that I wouldn't take.

What does adding a 6th DT get Chicago? Teams don't just make moves to make them, they have to have a logical reason to make them, you know that. Improving on their 5th DT isn't going to be worth a 3rd Round pick to somebody. The Bears have two young DT's they are trying to develop in Gilbert and Harrison, and adding a 6th DT and taking more snaps away from them is not going to help that. It would essentially be flushing draft picks away. Find a 4-3 team in need of a DT and yea maybe they give Williams a shot, but not somebody who already has a solid rotation.

Im aware that it doesnt work out exactly but how often do you think a team underpays by over 100 points to move up 12 spots in the 1st round? If anything they have to overpay. Hence the use of the values, if the Bills made the move that you suggested they should and would get slaughtered for it. You don't move down out of the top 20 from the top 10 and not get at least close to exact value for it, if anything you ask for over value. 12 spots is a huge drop for us to make, with big time risk involved. And please save the penis measuring. I dont know why you would of taken my comments to be condenscending, that's not how they were meant, now we can either discuss this and continue what was developing into a good discussion or we can end it here.
Heh you're looking into what I said too much, I'm not talking about the specific trades adding realism, but something to the tune of them, trying to nail that on the head would be even more of a waste of time than mocks are in the first place.

The whole idea of mocks is absurd and unrealistic. Trying to predict anything outside of a few picks that are somewhat obvious is ridiculous, we both know that. A mock with trades is more realistic than a mock without, not saying the specific trades are likely, but moves in general. That's all. Penis measuring? Come on dude, really? I don't get into the whole e-peen internet deal, did I whip it out when I asked to be talked to like an intelligent human being? How would I swing that on here? You've been here longer and me doing that would be pointless. Not sure where in what I said that could be taken from, but I'm over it let's move along. It was in reference to the "let me explain to you why" as if I were oblivious, but no point in continuing there, could have just been miscommunication, which I would have preferred to be brought up instead of "penis measuring".

I know it didn't value out perfectly, if I did it with that I'd probably have a handful of people trying to call me out for that.

DraftBoy

02-16-2010, 04:42 PM

Heh you're looking into what I said too much, I'm not talking about the specific trades adding realism, but something to the tune of them, trying to nail that on the head would be even more of a waste of time than mocks are in the first place.

The whole idea of mocks is absurd and unrealistic. Trying to predict anything outside of a few picks that are somewhat obvious is ridiculous, we both know that. A mock with trades is more realistic than a mock without, not saying the specific trades are likely, but moves in general. That's all. Penis measuring? Come on dude, really? I don't get into the whole e-peen internet deal, did I whip it out when I asked to be talked to like an intelligent human being? How would I swing that on here? You've been here longer and me doing that would be pointless. Not sure where in what I said that could be taken from, but I'm over it let's move along. It was in reference to the "let me explain to you why" as if I were oblivious, but no point in continuing there, could have just been miscommunication, which I would have preferred to be brought up instead of "penis measuring".

I know it didn't value out perfectly, if I did it with that I'd probably have a handful of people trying to call me out for that.
I dont think you're speaking clearly or at least not presenting you're points clearly in regards to the discussion, because Im a little confused.

If Im to understand you properly...Your opinion is that mocks with trades (no matter wrong or right) are fundamentally more accurate? Even though you concede from the jump off that mocks start off as absurd, which they are and they aren't depending on what your purpose is. Mocks are meant to do three things;

1. Assess Value in terms of prospects
2. Assess Team Needs
3. Introduce new names to new teams/fans

There is nothing in there about being accurate. Yes its fun the 24 hours prior to attempt to be accurate but that doesn't mean every one is an attempt. Either way as I explained in my last post its basically an argument based on semantics, it doesnt matter which side you fall on because neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong. Basically its a pointless debate.

Im not going to delve back into the you getting offended stuff, because its stupid and pointless. As I explained above my intent was not condescending, and Im still very confused as to how one could take a simple explanation as such, but I digress.

As for the trade down, its not about it valuing out perfectly as I said above, its near impossible to do, its that your trade doesn't value out as all that close. For example, when the Saints and Pats traded in 2008, the trade was;

7th, and 156th

for

10th, and 78

The values were 1526.8 to 1500, only a 26.8 point net gain or loss, not equal but not a huge gain or loss either way. The trade you suggest was a 143.2 points higher in net loss than this trade was and involves us taking far more risk in losing out on a top player by dropping all the way from 9 to 21. Imo if Im dropping that far specifically in Round 1, I want much closer value if not be over paid in order to get my pick. All Im saying is that you're value is far too off for me to be in favor of the deal you proposed.

JCBills

02-16-2010, 05:27 PM

I dont think you're speaking clearly or at least not presenting you're points clearly in regards to the discussion, because Im a little confused.

If Im to understand you properly...Your opinion is that mocks with trades (no matter wrong or right) are fundamentally more accurate? Even though you concede from the jump off that mocks start off as absurd, which they are and they aren't depending on what your purpose is. Mocks are meant to do three things;

1. Assess Value in terms of prospects
2. Assess Team Needs
3. Introduce new names to new teams/fans

There is nothing in there about being accurate. Yes its fun the 24 hours prior to attempt to be accurate but that doesn't mean every one is an attempt. Either way as I explained in my last post its basically an argument based on semantics, it doesnt matter which side you fall on because neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong. Basically its a pointless debate.

Im not going to delve back into the you getting offended stuff, because its stupid and pointless. As I explained above my intent was not condescending, and Im still very confused as to how one could take a simple explanation as such, but I digress.

As for the trade down, its not about it valuing out perfectly as I said above, its near impossible to do, its that your trade doesn't value out as all that close. For example, when the Saints and Pats traded in 2008, the trade was;

7th, and 156th

for

10th, and 78

The values were 1526.8 to 1500, only a 26.8 point net gain or loss, not equal but not a huge gain or loss either way. The trade you suggest was a 143.2 points higher in net loss than this trade was and involves us taking far more risk in losing out on a top player by dropping all the way from 9 to 21. Imo if Im dropping that far specifically in Round 1, I want much closer value if not be over paid in order to get my pick. All Im saying is that you're value is far too off for me to be in favor of the deal you proposed.

From the few lines I read, I was able to see the refusal to get past initial (misunderstood) statements, so I stopped.

I'll sum up my previous post because apparently the message wasn't clear:

I'm over it let's move along.

DrGraves

02-16-2010, 05:53 PM

it is moronic to include random trades in mocks. its so unrealistic.

DraftBoy

02-16-2010, 05:58 PM

PECKERWOOD

02-16-2010, 08:55 PM

it is moronic to include random trades in mocks. its so unrealistic.

Yeah but mock drafts are fun because for the split second you can actually conceive the notion of the Bills taking a good player!

PECKERWOOD

02-16-2010, 08:56 PM

Nix likes big OLmen. Charles Brown is a very slim OT. Barely 300 pounds. I don't like his value in the first round.

300lbs is no big deal, go out to KFC for a couple nights each week and you'll add 5-10lbs no problemo!

JCBills

02-17-2010, 12:26 AM

No refusal here just an eager willingness to return to the actual discussion of the mock. This has been a fun discussion, very few people know what the metrics are or where to find them. I was very impressed by your use of them.

Most people reject metrics because it challenges whatever opinion they have formed, you should have seen the rage I caused with Poz's metrics.

My only intention was discuss the mock, not go off on a tangent like we did there a wee bit, we have a difference of opinion, and I know you're one of the few people on here that's able to recognize that and move on, I'm going to do the same, looks like we'll have good talks in the future though. It was probably nice for each of us to have to argue valid points, most people's statements can be dismantled with a sentence or two, so a change of pace was nice :D Agree to disagree.

Another thing with the metrics, think Whitner's run value could be a little skewed considering he wasn't always as close to the line as a straight up SS would be? I was thinking about that when I was just out plowing.

X-Era

02-17-2010, 06:01 AM

Oaf

02-17-2010, 09:54 AM

I like it, JC.

DraftBoy

02-17-2010, 10:54 AM

Most people reject metrics because it challenges whatever opinion they have formed, you should have seen the rage I caused with Poz's metrics.

My only intention was discuss the mock, not go off on a tangent like we did there a wee bit, we have a difference of opinion, and I know you're one of the few people on here that's able to recognize that and move on, I'm going to do the same, looks like we'll have good talks in the future though. It was probably nice for each of us to have to argue valid points, most people's statements can be dismantled with a sentence or two, so a change of pace was nice :D Agree to disagree.

Another thing with the metrics, think Whitner's run value could be a little skewed considering he wasn't always as close to the line as a straight up SS would be? I was thinking about that when I was just out plowing.

I like things that challenge your opinion and make you think and take new things into consideration. Opinions should be fluid, and maluable, not rigid, and sturdy.

No I dont think Whitner's value is that skewed because he takes really bad angles at times. I mean some plays you watch him in pursuit and his angle is horribly bad.

Where do you get your Metrics from? I know a number of different sites produce them but the results are sometimes varied.

JCBills

02-17-2010, 11:09 AM

I like things that challenge your opinion and make you think and take new things into consideration. Opinions should be fluid, and maluable, not rigid, and sturdy.

No I dont think Whitner's value is that skewed because he takes really bad angles at times. I mean some plays you watch him in pursuit and his angle is horribly bad.

Where do you get your Metrics from? I know a number of different sites produce them but the results are sometimes varied.

Those were PFF's, they usually do a pretty good job, gona get Joyner's when I can.