Roll Call - Who would have preferred to lose?

[Reverend Jesse Jackson]

Amen, Dean

Thank You!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Didn't we go through this already some year ago when Deluca voice his opinion about tanking the season... You know when the JP fanboys were running around.

 

Right on.

 

Not to mention there is no real quality difference between a #2 pick and #6 pick, we're talking about the 11 Best players out of of all of the 100s of college football players.

Lets look a a quick look at HOF players:

 

# of NFL Hall of Famers picked at each draft position in the top 11:

 

#1 Picks - 11

#2 Picks - 8

#3 Picks - 9

#4 Picks - 9

#5 Picks - 6

#6 Picks - 10

#7 PIcks - 1

#8 Picks - 4

#9 Picks - 3

#10 Picks - 2

#11 Picks - 5

 

What the heck happened with the #7 pick!!!!

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

Right on.

 

Not to mention there is no real quality difference between a #2 pick and #6 pick, we're talking about the 11 Best players out of of all of the 100s of college football players.

Lets look a a quick look at HOF players:

 

# of NFL Hall of Famers picked at each draft position in the top 11:

 

#1 Picks - 11

#2 Picks - 8

#3 Picks - 9

#4 Picks - 9

#5 Picks - 6

#6 Picks - 10

#7 PIcks - 1

#8 Picks - 4

#9 Picks - 3

#10 Picks - 2

#11 Picks - 5

 

Speaking only for myself, these numbers are irrelevant to the argument about why I prefer to lose. It's not about comparing success of draft picks historically by draft order/position. It's solely about the opinion that the Bills need to draft a QB and the opportunity to be in a position of ultimate power to make that decision. That's it. If you disagree with that opinion fine. I'm not arguing we can't hit on a hall of fame player at pick #6, but you're not getting Luck and most likely Mallet at that spot.

[1B4IDie]

Didn't we go through this already some year ago when Deluca voice his opinion about tanking the season... You know when the JP fanboys were running around.

 

 

 

What the heck happened with the #7 pick!!!!

Clyde "Bulldog" Turner, C, Chicago Bears, Drafted 1940!

 

Speaking only for myself, these numbers are irrelevant to the argument about why I prefer to lose. It's not about comparing success of draft picks historically by draft order/position. It's solely about the opinion that the Bills need to draft a QB and the opportunity to be in a position of ultimate power to make that decision. That's it. If you disagree with that opinion fine. I'm not arguing we can't hit on a hall of fame player at pick #6, but you're not getting Luck and most likely Mallet at that spot.

Masochist-at-Heart,

 

You are correct. Good thing the #1 Priority for the Bills is a pass rusher which will be available when the Bills pick.

[SoggyHog]

Right on.

 

Not to mention there is no real quality difference between a #2 pick and #6 pick, we're talking about the 11 Best players out of of all of the 100s of college football players.

Lets look a a quick look at HOF players:

 

# of NFL Hall of Famers picked at each draft position in the top 11:

 

#1 Picks - 11

#2 Picks - 8

#3 Picks - 9

#4 Picks - 9

#5 Picks - 6

#6 Picks - 10

#7 PIcks - 1

#8 Picks - 4

#9 Picks - 3

#10 Picks - 2

#11 Picks - 5

 

 

And only 4 #1 overalls have been QB's. Throw in Peyton Manning, and that makes 5. FIVE! Out of 89!

[truth on hold]

Speaking only for myself, these numbers are irrelevant to the argument about why I prefer to lose. It's not about comparing success of draft picks historically by draft order/position. It's solely about the opinion that the Bills need to draft a QB and the opportunity to be in a position of ultimate power to make that decision. That's it. If you disagree with that opinion fine. I'm not arguing we can't hit on a hall of fame player at pick #6, but you're not getting Luck and most likely Mallet at that spot.

Worse than that, this analysis is flawed because a) it only uses HoF as a measure of success and even worse b) it doesn't capture the effects of drafting higher in the other rounds. Far more than just the 1st round, I find myself wishing we were drafting several positions higher in the other rounds so we could get that OT, LB, DE, TE etc etc we want.

 

I'll say it again: when you're out of the playoff race, "winning" is losing because of its effect on your draft position. This season, does anyone really care what the Bills record was last year? Geesh, some of the "analysis" here is truly dreadful.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

To those people that want to se the Bills lose out ...

 

Kiss my

 

I was actually happy to say the game was OVER with over a minute left in the game!!!

 

Finish strong and build from there. The Draft is a gamble as it is. Stevie Johnson was drafted in the seventh round (224th overall) in 2008.

[1B4IDie]

Worse than that, this analysis is flawed because a) it only uses HoF as a measure of success and even worse b) it doesn't capture the effects of drafting higher in the other rounds. Far more than just the 1st round, I find myself wishing we were drafting several positions higher in the other rounds so we could get that OT, LB, DE, TE etc etc we want.

 

I'll say it again: when you're out of the playoff race, "winning" is losing because of its effect on your draft position. This season, does anyone really care what the Bills record was last year? Geesh, some of the "analysis" here is truly dreadful.

Just facts not analysis.

Do you have any evidence that supports drafting higher produces better prospects, Besides just propagating a general notion?

 

Because its much more likely that Coaching, organizational support, opportunity and Personal dedication matter much more than whether an individual was drafted with 86th pick or 116th pick.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Why So Serious?

[truth on hold]

Just facts not analysis.

Do you have any evidence that supports drafting higher produces better prospects, Besides just propagating a general notion?

 

Because its much more likely that Coaching, organizational support, opportunity and Personal dedication matter much more than whether an individual was drafted with 86th pick or 116th pick.

No you're right, the entire NFL have lost their minds thinking higher draft picks are more valuable than lower ones ... LOL.

 

But just to put an end to your silliness once and for all, let's look at the draft from 5 years ago and see where probowlers come from:

 

RD # of Probowlers

1 -- 10

2 -- 5

3 -- 2

4 -- 2

5 -- 1

6 -- 1

7 -- 2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

 

Notice any kind of pattern there? LOL

Edited November 23, 2010 by Joe_the_6_pack

[The Senator]

To those people that want to se the Bills lose out ...

 

Kiss my

 

I was actually happy to say the game was OVER with over a minute left in the game!!!

 

Finish strong and build from there. The Draft is a gamble as it is. Stevie Johnson was drafted in the seventh round (224th overall) in 2008.

LOVE IT, BF4E!!!

 

But...a minute is a long time, some times...

 

The Buffalo Bills scored 20 points in 77 seconds against the Denver Broncos on Sept. 30, 1990, a season that landed them in the first of four consecutive Super Bowls. The Bills are still the only team to do so in NFL history.

 

 

Folks wonder why I'm such an unreasonable optimist - it's because I remember those days!!! An era when you could NEVER count the Bills out. As Yogi said, "It ain't over 'til it's over..."

 

 

Those days are coming again soon, to a stadium near you...

[1B4IDie]

No you're right, the entire NFL have lost their minds thinking higher draft picks are more valuable than lower ones ... LOL.

 

But just to put an end to your silliness once and for all, let's look at the draft from 5 years ago and see where probowlers come from:

 

RD # of Probowlers

1 -- 10

2 -- 5

3 -- 2

4 -- 2

5 -- 1

6 -- 1

7 -- 2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

 

Notice any kind of pattern there? LOL

 

Really the entire NFL believes your nonsense position?

If that were true why is tanking not a reality in the NFL?

Why do actual teams NOT purposely lose games?

Why was the NFL not forced to enact a lottery because of wide scale tanking?

 

The answer is because the NFL does not believe there is a significant qualitative difference in the draft picks if you tank.

 

Its just people that see a lot of highlighted pro bowlers and think that can be applied position by position. Pick #116 must be better than pick #118 because there are more pro bowlers picked in the first round than the second.

 

If a team were to tank they would really only gain 3-5 slots by tanking, there is not a significant enough difference by moving up a few slots in the draft worth the trade off of losing out in real football games. If there were the multibillion dollar businesses in the NFL would have already figured this out and would have started tanking for the last 50 + years without the Genius insight of Joe_the_6_Pack, Edwards's Arm and Masochist-at-Heart (a real Buffalonian would never propose losing as an option.)

 

The truth is tanking does not significantly improve your draft prospects enough.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Why So Serious?

[Van_phelaN1]

Me.

 

Winning when you're out of the playoffs is losing because it hurts your draft position.

 

You play to win the Super Bowl ... not to win meaningless regular season games that hurt your draft position, and hence hurt the talent you end up having.

 

Their argument about 'carrying momentum into next year" and "learning to win" is complete BS. Miami went from 1 and 15 to playoffs next season. ATL went from complete shambles to playoff the next season after drafting Matt Ryan.

 

 

1) Miami went 1 and 15 but were a much better team then the record indicated (much like the Bills now)

2) They went to the playoffs the next season and then the season after that they went...back to mediocrity...and even more recently with injuries, back to bad once again.

3) the 2007 Atlanta Falcons were 4-12 at the end of the season. I am sure if they wanted to lose a couple of extra games to move up to #1 overall they could have but didn't because you just DONT do that. Coincidentally that brings me to...

4) Matt Ryan was selected 3rd overall. So that whole having to have the number one overall pick to get a franchise QB thing is the real BS around here. I won't even bother to mention when Brady got drafted.

 

 

No you're right, the entire NFL have lost their minds thinking higher draft picks are more valuable than lower ones ... LOL.

 

But just to put an end to your silliness once and for all, let's look at the draft from 5 years ago and see where probowlers come from:

 

RD # of Probowlers

1 -- 10

2 -- 5

3 -- 2

4 -- 2

5 -- 1

6 -- 1

7 -- 2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

 

Notice any kind of pattern there? LOL

 

You're going to LOL your own post? Oh so you are THAT guy. He didn't say that there ISN'T a difference but that the difference is not WORTH tanking over to only move a few picks. But that's okay we are just a bunch of sillies being silly with silliness.

[eball]

Me.

 

Winning when you're out of the playoffs is losing because it hurts your draft position.

 

You play to win the Super Bowl ... not to win meaningless regular season games that hurt your draft position, and hence hurt the talent you end up having.

 

Their argument about 'carrying momentum into next year" and "learning to win" is complete BS. Miami went from 1 and 15 to playoffs next season. ATL went from complete shambles to playoff the next season after drafting Matt Ryan.

Complete and utter bullstojan.

 

Winning breeds winning.

[Koufax]

Great data. Thanks.

 

So I think we can all agree we won't intentionally trade 1st round picks for 2nd or any other full round trade downs, because top players are more likely to come from the higher rounds.

 

Back to the actual discussion, the issue is whether losing and drafting higher would 1) Help us get a franchise QB or 2) Help us be better overall in the next few years.

 

I think our move in the last two weeks from the #1 pick to #4-6 was inevitable (look at the road OT losses against two first place teams), and we weren't going to go 0-16 which is what it likely would have taken to beat the soon-to-be 1-15 Panthers. It felt like it at 0-8, but when the dust settles we aren't going to be looking at just one half of football (2nd vs Bengals) where if we did a little worse we would have gotten a savior.

 

Also, with due respect to Luck, the evidence that has been put forth here shows generally picking #4-6 isn't such a difference from picking #1. We all love the Peyton story, but the Colts were considering Leaf as well, and there are many other #1 busts who were considered locks six months before the draft happens.

 

Also, drafting well is much better than drafting high. There just isn't any way around this. Look at what the Steelers and Patriots have done over the last decade without cracking the top 10, and compare that to what the Lions and Raiders have done. Those are just examples in the extreme, but it is clear that it does not take top picks to build an amazing roster (even their superstar QBs were not picked in the top 10).

 

Now, in every isolated case I would rather have a higher pick than a lower pick, but there is nothing isolated about it. We have guys on this team now who are building what the Bills will be in the next few years, guys who will be part of our 2013 team whether it is in last place or the Super Bowl. And to the development of those guys and the coach and more, I think that turning 0-8 into 4-12 will be more valuable than riding it to an "It-Doesn't-Matter-Anyways" 1-15 (and likely the #2 pick at 1-15). Not more valuable because it is fun to win as a fan, but more valuable to the actual progress of our team into a champion.

 

Rooting for losing because you think it will make you better is not just pretty sad as a sports fan, I also think that realistically it is not a very sound objective.

 

But if Joe_the_6_pack has some extra time to do statistical research, can you get us a list of the 0,1,2 win teams that appeared in a super bowl or conference title game in the following five years? Even Manning's Colts didn't get to a conference championship until the sixth year. Or are you looking towards the 2016 season and beyond? Our best path to the playoffs is finding a way to be a 4-12 or even 5-11 team this year, and rolling that momentum into next year and see what year #2 of a new system and coach can do, as players start understanding the system and start learning how to win.

 

Even in 2001 I don't regret beating the Panthers to miss Peppers and fall to #4 for Mike Williams. What I regret is picking Mike Williams at #4 instead of Dwight Freeney, Albert Hayensworth, or Ed Reed.

 

And maybe Mallett or Locker will fall into our laps at #4-6 and five years from now be the steal of the draft people are talking about. Eli Manning #1, Rivers #4, Big Ben #11. Or maybe Fitz is our guy for now, we draft a QB in a later round or in 2012, and we pick up a defensive beast that changes the character of our front 7. A lot can happen after draft day, so I think we will be fine if Chan and Buddy make good decisions. But right now I just hope we find a way to win one Sunday at a time.

 

Go Bills!

 

No you're right, the entire NFL have lost their minds thinking higher draft picks are more valuable than lower ones ... LOL.

 

But just to put an end to your silliness once and for all, let's look at the draft from 5 years ago and see where probowlers come from:

 

RD # of Probowlers

1 -- 10

2 -- 5

3 -- 2

4 -- 2

5 -- 1

6 -- 1

7 -- 2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

 

Notice any kind of pattern there? LOL

[1B4IDie]

Great data. Thanks.

 

So I think we can all agree we won't intentionally trade 1st round picks for 2nd or any other full round trade downs, because top players are more likely to come from the higher rounds.

 

Back to the actual discussion, the issue is whether losing and drafting higher would 1) Help us get a franchise QB or 2) Help us be better overall in the next few years.

 

I think our move in the last two weeks from the #1 pick to #4-6 was inevitable (look at the road OT losses against two first place teams), and we weren't going to go 0-16 which is what it likely would have taken to beat the soon-to-be 1-15 Panthers. It felt like it at 0-8, but when the dust settles we aren't going to be looking at just one half of football (2nd vs Bengals) where if we did a little worse we would have gotten a savior.

 

Also, with due respect to Luck, the evidence that has been put forth here shows generally picking #4-6 isn't such a difference from picking #1. We all love the Peyton story, but the Colts were considering Leaf as well, and there are many other #1 busts who were considered locks six months before the draft happens.

 

Also, drafting well is much better than drafting high. There just isn't any way around this. Look at what the Steelers and Patriots have done over the last decade without cracking the top 10, and compare that to what the Lions and Raiders have done. Those are just examples in the extreme, but it is clear that it does not take top picks to build an amazing roster (even their superstar QBs were not picked in the top 10).

 

Now, in every isolated case I would rather have a higher pick than a lower pick, but there is nothing isolated about it. We have guys on this team now who are building what the Bills will be in the next few years, guys who will be part of our 2013 team whether it is in last place or the Super Bowl. And to the development of those guys and the coach and more, I think that turning 0-8 into 4-12 will be more valuable than riding it to an "It-Doesn't-Matter-Anyways" 1-15 (and likely the #2 pick at 1-15). Not more valuable because it is fun to win as a fan, but more valuable to the actual progress of our team into a champion.

 

Rooting for losing because you think it will make you better is not just pretty sad as a sports fan, I also think that realistically it is not a very sound objective.

 

But if Joe_the_6_pack has some extra time to do statistical research, can you get us a list of the 0,1,2 win teams that appeared in a super bowl or conference title game in the following five years? Even Manning's Colts didn't get to a conference championship until the sixth year. Or are you looking towards the 2016 season and beyond? Our best path to the playoffs is finding a way to be a 4-12 or even 5-11 team this year, and rolling that momentum into next year and see what year #2 of a new system and coach can do, as players start understanding the system and start learning how to win.

 

Even in 2001 I don't regret beating the Panthers to miss Peppers and fall to #4 for Mike Williams. What I regret is picking Mike Williams at #4 instead of Dwight Freeney, Albert Hayensworth, or Ed Reed.

 

And maybe Mallett or Locker will fall into our laps at #4-6 and five years from now be the steal of the draft people are talking about. Eli Manning #1, Rivers #4, Big Ben #11. Or maybe Fitz is our guy for now, we draft a QB in a later round or in 2012, and we pick up a defensive beast that changes the character of our front 7. A lot can happen after draft day, so I think we will be fine if Chan and Buddy make good decisions. But right now I just hope we find a way to win one Sunday at a time.

 

Go Bills!

What an amazingly thoughtful and well written post.

 

I can only hope, certain individuals have the capacity to learn, or a minimum appreciate the logical response.

[Orton's Arm]

Because, as we researchers say, "That's horses#it!"

 

You show me evidence that suggests a slight improvement is draft position is a better predictor of wins the next season than winning in the last half of the season. Go ahead and remove the top teams from your analysis, if that makes you feel better.

I agree that doing well in the second half of the season is a fairly good predictor of wins the following year. Conversely, getting a top-5 pick in a given draft does not seem strongly correlated with the number of wins in the subsequent season.

 

The number of games your team will win is driven by the quality of the coaching and by the quality of the players. A team that goes 5-3 in the second half of the season likely has better players, a better coaching staff, and even a better general manager than does a team with a 1-15 record for the year.

 

But losing football games does not subtract from the quality of your coaching staff, the quality of your players, or the ability of your front office personnel. What it does do is give your general manager a better, more powerful tool on draft day. A general manager like Matt Millen will likely squander his first round pick no matter how good it is. But in the abler hands of a Bill Polian, that very early pick can turn into a special player. It is the number and quality of special players--among other factors--that ultimately drives the number of wins your team will achieve.

 

A good analogy is this: a guy that drives around in a shiny new Mercedes likely has more money in his bank account than a guy who drives a more modest vehicle. But it would be illogical to conclude that choosing the Mercedes over the mid-level car would automatically result in more money in your account.

[Bills(70)]

No you're right, the entire NFL have lost their minds thinking higher draft picks are more valuable than lower ones ... LOL.

 

But just to put an end to your silliness once and for all, let's look at the draft from 5 years ago and see where probowlers come from:

 

RD # of Probowlers

1 -- 10

2 -- 5

3 -- 2

4 -- 2

5 -- 1

6 -- 1

7 -- 2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NFL_Draft

 

Notice any kind of pattern there? LOL

I agree with your post Joe.

Talent taken in the 1st and 2nd round of the draft have historically been the masters of the grid-iron.

It is what it is.

 

I think the Bills end up in the 2 to 5 position this coming draft, which actually isn't bad.

I would like them to consider trading down, if and only if a team is willing to give up its 1st and 2nd rounder to get our 1st round pick.

Since I put up a most likely 2 to 5 spot in the draft scenairio for the Bills, I could see teams in the 15 to 22 pick overall consider giving up a 1st and 2nd rounder to move up, especially if they already have an additional 2nd rounder to fall back on.

 

Would that help the Bills? Sure it would long term. By adding more top 2 round pick/picks, they add to the potential depth of the team.

Will Nix and crew trade down? I don't know, I have no prior record of Nix at GM to base an estimation on.

[thurst44]

In am a fan and always want to see them win, and given the remaining schedule I am not considered about them winning too many more.

 

Pittsburgh - Ok, that's a hard one.

Minnesota - In total chaos, easily beatable

Cleveland - Why do they get credit for close games with some people and we just don't know how to win; it'll probably be some awful football, but this is a coin-toss at worst (and i say we're due in this yearly debacle).

Miami - In a tailspin, wracked with injuries and have the look of a team that could lose out.

New England - Has anyone noticed their defense is near dead last this year. We have to beat them eventually. They may pick up a few losses in the second half, including this one, which may mean...

NY Jets - ...may have nothing to play for.

 

That familiar ol' 7-9 is a distinct possibility, but it would be the best 7-9 yet. And take a look at that Peyton Manning draft that lose-bots like to point out. There's guys who would help us all throughout the first round. If our front office hasn't learned to draft, we have bigger problems.

[Homey D. Clown]

tanking a season is no different than taking a dive in boxing. It's flat out wrong. If you don't learn to win the right way now, the team never will have the right attitude, and what type of message does that send to the team? Nevermind what I think about fans wanting the team to lose.

[1B4IDie]

I agree that doing well in the second half of the season is a fairly good predictor of wins the following year. Conversely, getting a top-5 pick in a given draft does not seem strongly correlated with the number of wins in the subsequent season.

 

The number of games your team will win is driven by the quality of the coaching and by the quality of the players. A team that goes 5-3 in the second half of the season likely has better players, a better coaching staff, and even a better general manager than does a team with a 1-15 record for the year.

 

But losing football games does not subtract from the quality of your coaching staff, the quality of your players, or the ability of your front office personnel. What it does do is give your general manager a better, more powerful tool on draft day. A general manager like Matt Millen will likely squander his first round pick no matter how good it is. But in the abler hands of a Bill Polian, that very early pick can turn into a special player. It is the number and quality of special players--among other factors--that ultimately drives the number of wins your team will achieve.

 

A good analogy is this: a guy that drives around in a shiny new Mercedes likely has more money in his bank account than a guy who drives a more modest vehicle. But it would be illogical to conclude that choosing the Mercedes over the mid-level car would automatically result in more money in your account.

You do understand that stating that drafting higher will make your team better is analogous to "choosing the Mercedes over the mid-level car would automatically result in more money in your account."

Drafting a Mercedes early doesn't mean your team is better off organizationally. You still have to mold the draft pick and devise offense and defense strategies to use the new player effectively. You get that right?

You keep restating this general notion that losing is the most prudent organizational strategy in more outlandish and incomprehensible ways because you are just plain incorrect.

You ignore posts like Koufax that reasonably proves your notion is incorrect then ramble about choosing cars.

Please take the time to read and understand then learn.

You don't have to constantly beat the same broken drum but it is a fact that the small incremental improvement in draft position that an organization will receive by losing inorder to draft an incrementally better "tool" is not worth the trade off of losing.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Why So Serious?