silvermike Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The Steelers took Big Ben at #11. That was after a 6-10 season. So their bottoming out is really more of the low end of mediocrity, and roughly where we've been for a decade now. And in our time at the bottom, we've had shots at top-rated QBs. Not that they all worked out (we passed on Brady Quinn), but those shots were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Rock bottom is not a neccessity but if you are there it helps to be alone and don't miss on the picks. We are rock bottom and yet 5 other teams are right there with us. Imagine being this bad and not picking top 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I'm going to use "appeared in conference championship game" as a barometer of greatness, just for the sake of argument: 2008: Arizona, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore. Arizona certainly spent some time along the bottom, and has Larry Fitzgerald to show for it. I think he's a huge part of why that team every got anywhere. Philly turned a 3-13 season into Donovan McNabb, though Garcia and Feely have shown that the team might be as good without him. Pittsburgh's only recent high draft pick is Roethlisberger, but he's still a result of mediocrity, not disaster. Baltimore's been consistent. 2007: New England, San Diego, New York, Green Bay The Giants and Chargers were running off top-5 picks in the same drafts. However, San Diego would be fine if they still had Brees instead of Rivers, so arguably, they really wasted the top-5 pick there. On the other hand, replace top-5 LaDanian Tomlinson with a generic, mid-round RB and it gets a little bit tougher. I think that really, both those teams got where they are because of bottoming out, although I suppose Kurt Warner has shown he's still got some stuff, and he might have remained the Giants QB without Manning. The Patriots never really bottomed out in composing their current team, and Green Bay also was dependent on no top-5 picks. 2006: Indianapolis, New England, Chicago, New Orleans Patriots as above, Colts obviously depend on their #1 overall pick. The Bears never bottomed out to get to where they were at the point, and while the Saints had a #2 overall pick in Reggie Bush, he hasn't been the kind of superstar that that pick would suggest. 2005: Steelers, Broncos, Seattle, Carolina Steelers as above. Broncos were going of Plummer and Mike Anderson for this one - that was a team that had no recent bad seasons. Seattle and Carolina also were perennial mid-level teams, though the Panthers really needed #2 pick Julius Peppers to get them in gear. 2004: Patriots, Steelers, Eagles, Falcons. Patriots and Steelers and Eagles - no changes. Falcons were really dependent on Vick at this point, for whom they traded up from #5. I'd say that counts. 2003: Patriots, Colts, Eagles, Panthers Nothing new here. So, New England, Pittsburgh, Denver, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, Green Bay, and Baltimore did it without bottoming out, while Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Carolina, Atlanta, San Diego, the Giants, and Arizona requires a trip to the bottom. Nice post. Not sure I agree with the conclusion though. The Giants, for example, have been very successful since the 80s. Sure, there have been a few bad seasons mixed in, but their "bottom" is typically around .500 football -- which is the top for the Bills. The Colts were a dysfunctional mess until they re-did their front office and hired Bill Polian. Since then, they have been a winning program. Some sort of statute of limitations is in order perhaps, because other than Peyton Manning the Colts have undergone a steady re-tooling process. The undefeated Colts team of today resembles the one that started the string of winning seasons very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Nice post. Not sure I agree with the conclusion though. The Giants, for example, have been very successful since the 80s. Sure, there have been a few bad seasons mixed in, but their "bottom" is typically around .500 football -- which is the top for the Bills. The Colts were a dysfunctional mess until they re-did their front office and hired Bill Polian. Since then, they have been a winning program. Some sort of statute of limitations is in order perhaps, because other than Peyton Manning the Colts have undergone a steady re-tooling process. The undefeated Colts team of today resembles the one that started the string of winning seasons very little. Yeah, it's tricky to figure out exactly. The Colts and Giants are both model franchises, that both suffered a terrible season and came away with a Manning and a long-term winning record. The Giants had been good, I guess, where the Colts were just starting out on their greatness. The Giants only have Eli as a result of any top-10 pick and Indianapolis also grabbed Edgerrin James with a top-10 pick (though he was gone when they won the Super Bowl anyway.) It does seem like those teams have enough talent evaluation skill to have grabbed a QB at some point since they got their Mannings. Maybe the Giants would have grabbed Schaub in the 2nd round if they had passed on Eli, or been the ones to have signed Drew Brees when he left San Diego (perhaps after losing the starting job to Eli Manning?) Maybe the Manning-less Colts would have ended up with Daunte Culpepper and thrived? Kurt Warner? It's hard to say, but I do agree there: they're good teams that got their key cog at the top of the draft, but might have solved the QB issue anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yeah, it's tricky to figure out exactly. The Colts and Giants are both model franchises, that both suffered a terrible season and came away with a Manning and a long-term winning record. The Giants had been good, I guess, where the Colts were just starting out on their greatness. The Giants only have Eli as a result of any top-10 pick and Indianapolis also grabbed Edgerrin James with a top-10 pick (though he was gone when they won the Super Bowl anyway.) It does seem like those teams have enough talent evaluation skill to have grabbed a QB at some point since they got their Mannings. Maybe the Giants would have grabbed Schaub in the 2nd round if they had passed on Eli, or been the ones to have signed Drew Brees when he left San Diego (perhaps after losing the starting job to Eli Manning?) Maybe the Manning-less Colts would have ended up with Daunte Culpepper and thrived? Kurt Warner? It's hard to say, but I do agree there: they're good teams that got their key cog at the top of the draft, but might have solved the QB issue anyway. I think the Giants, Colts, and Steelers just sort of underscore the importance of the organization overall. The Giants have gone through multiple QBs, changed defensive systems, changing coaching staffs, and they just win. The Colts and Steelers have their own formula that they stick with. Focusing on the QB, the Giants made a fairly bold trade to get their current QB and benefitted from some bad blood between the Mannings and the San Diego organization. The Giants also committed to him and stuck with him through some early struggles -- many people declared Eli a bust after some bad games and many INTs early in his career. Big Ben is a QB that won Super Bowls very early in his career, but if you follow his development, he is only just now truly emerging as a complete QB in the way Peyton Manning has been in recent years. All three of these franchises have a formula and develop leaders and excellence at all levels of their organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbuk3 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Ponder this - it seems most times teams have a dynasty, it is following a series of abysmal seasons. Bills had back to back 2-14 seasons before becoming great. Cowboys had a 3-13, followed by a 1-15 before beginning their dynasty. Colts - back to back 3-13 seasons. San Francisco - back to back 2-14 seasons. I am not saying that it is always like this, but most of the real good dynasties started as almost a fresh slate as the front office basically dumped everyone and started new and put together a strong core. I think if you are a team that floats between 6-10 and 10-6 for long periods of time, you basically get stuck in a rut and can have a "good" core, but never great. You may make the playoffs on occasion, but you'll never fully get there. Think Pittsburgh Penguins. It helps to suck and have the number 1 or 2 draft pick for many years. It also helps to have a front office who knows what they are doing (see Pittsburgh Steelers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts