The Hidden Reason For The Lost Decade

[HuSeYiN1978]

We should put plastic bags over our heads instead of brown paper ones... The paper ones let in air and we can't pass out....... Bills suck

[#34fan]

Um. Okay... So you're saying IF we can introduce Fitz to some hottie, and subsequently get him laid, the resulting divorce may indirectly increase his level of play, and competitive drive. Hm... I'd be totally for it, if it weren't for one small thing.

 

Fitz has the personality of creeping mold.

 

Face it, this mathlete won't be on the "prowl" for anything but textbooks on Keynesian economics. All Fitz would do in the club, is scare away all the strange with his disgusting beard.

 

Nobody would get lucky.

 

And think about this: Even if you managed to hook this nerd a piece of wild snapper, what the heck would he do with it anyway? -If his skills in the sack are anything like his skills in the pocket, there'd be problems.

 

1) No movement whatsoever.

 

2) Problems staying upright.

 

3) Can't hit the obvious target.

 

4) Does his thing really quickly before he turns the field over to someone else.

 

If Fitzpatrick is as smart as people say, then he's THANKFUL for his wife Liz, or Eliza, or whatever her name is. She ain't too bad lookin', and she seems like a nice girl. Would he play more competitively as a bachelor? Probably. But not that much more compettitively. Personally, I'd rather just CUT the guy than wreck his home.

Edited December 21, 2011 by #34fan

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Who said anything about wrecking the guy's home life? Just because I'm abrogating using the best available scientific research to make personnel decisions going forward, that doesn't mean that I would screw with the existing personal relationships of guys who are already on the team. Would you suggest kidnapping his kids, too, so that he wouldn't be involved in any more child-raising activities?

 

But just for the sake of argument, let's say I WAS willing to wreck his home life. Do you really think that ANY starting NFL QB who just signed a multi-year deal that guaranteed future payment of millions of dollars would be unable to attract at least some hottie attention merely because of his personality? Not on my planet, and I'm told that some women actually enjoy the company of an intelligent man (which Fitz clearly is). Like me, everybody who posts here just has to go on hearsay on that issue.

 

Besides, you're confusing cause and effect. At some point in the past, Fitz was single, childless, uncommitted, and had high enough testosterone levels to hook up with a woman that even you admit "ain't too bad lookin'." And that was before he was a multi-millionaire.

 

I don't know how quickly his old testosterone levels would return if he got divorced, but presumably they would improve. Probably faster if she got sole custody of the kids.

[n3wyork13]

Wow....I stoped at "some blame it on the owner" it is the owners fault hes a scumbag

[#34fan]

 

 

I don't know how quickly his old testosterone levels would return if he got divorced, but presumably they would improve. Probably faster if she got sole custody of the kids.

 

Yah, those child-support payments would probably get him fired up a little bit too.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Wow....I stoped at "some blame it on the owner" it is the owners fault hes a scumbag

Thanks for loging in and stoping by.

Edited December 21, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right.

 

If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners.

 

Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why:

 

Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance.

 

The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships?

 

You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive.

 

Just my 2 lira (based on science).

Yeah that's great, did you check the levels of testosterone of the high charater guys vs "non" high character guys? That would be the scientific thing to do.

 

Seriously you think the Bills lack of testosterone is the reason for our losing? C'mon dude

 

We drafted Lynch and Mcgahee "low" character guys and "high character" Fred is better.

 

If you are lifting heavy weights your T levels will be up and will override any nanny nice guy Mr. mom syndrone.

 

Our problem has been bad drafting and bad coaching, end of story.

 

That must be the reason why the Convicts beat the Guards in "The Longest Yard".

Yeah but the cops were juicing

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I'm going to guess that you are not a provider, not involved in childrearing, and not in a committed relationship with any women (outside of the staff at a sports bar or 2).

 

Compensate much?

 

kj

Hey kj! Upon further refraction, I realized that if you truly are in a situation where you are considered to be in a committed relationship with WOMEN (plural), you are a much better negotiator than me, and should probably be WRITING articles about testosterone. If you have anything else to say on this topic, I'm all ears. Is polygamy still legal in Utah?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

. . . We drafted Lynch and Mcgahee "low" character guys and "high character" Fred is better. . . .

 

Whether you like it or not, the scientific research is what it is. Men in committed relationships, especially if they are involved in child-raising, generally have lower testosterone levels than when they were on the prowl. Maybe the difference in testosterone levels helps explain why Fred went on IR half-way through the season, while Lynch and McGahee keep pounding the rock for their teams. As I stated in my original post, further research may be needed to definitively prove that higher testosterone levels lead to improved athletic performance. But the connection between testosterone levels and aggressiveness is already proven.

 

I like Fred as a runner because he's slippery, but are you seriously contending that he runs more aggressively than Lynch? They call Lynch "Beast Mode" for a reason.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Whether you like it or not, the scientific research is what it is. Men in committed relationships, especially if they are involved in child-raising, generally have lower testosterone levels than when they were on the prowl. Maybe the difference in testosterone levels helps explain why Fred went on IR half-way through the season, while Lynch and McGahee keep pounding the rock for their teams. As I stated in my original post, further research may be needed to definitively prove that higher testosterone levels lead to improved athletic performance. But the connection between testosterone levels and aggressiveness is already proven.

 

I like Fred as a runner because he's slippery, but are you seriously contending that he runs more aggressively than Lynch? They call Lynch "Beast Mode" for a reason.

No, he is better than Lynch, I'll take better over aggressive every day.

 

Listen you can be all scientific as you want but until you check our players T, you are just guessing.

 

These guys take so many supplements and "other" aids that your theory doesn't work. Were your studies done on average joe who doesn't do jack for his performance or is it sudying superstar athletes who want to win.

 

I'll give you a story about myself; I've happily married for 16 years and I lift heavy weights (625 deadlift 435 bench) and let me tell you what a couple hrs after lifting I'm trying to tear my wife's clothes off. So if you lift heavy and take care of yourself like any players do, low testosterone is not a problem.

 

Like I said its drafting poorly that's been the problem. Greenbay, Pitt and most teams draft high character guys its just that theirs are better players than ours . The Raiders have been known for decades as bad boys and once they were great and now the stink. Their problem is their bad boys can't play whereas the old ones could.

 

Bottom line is talent and coaching. Always has been always will be.

[cage]

Ok, let's just say that your theory is true and that bachelors are better at football that married dads.

 

Do you actually know that the Bills of the last decade have had more family men than the other teams or are you just guessing?

 

I recall reading an article where Steve Tasker said attributed his longevity in the league and success to the fact that he was him in bed, asleep with his wife each night at a reasonable time and not out partying late like other players who didn't have such attachments...

 

...also I find that my child-raising raises my aggression levels. I always wanted to be DE, sack specialist.

 

This post is useful comedy relief though as I read through everyone's reactions!!

Edited December 21, 2011 by cage

[ET1062]

(625 deadlift 435 bench)

 

Let's all give our lifting numbers! 945 Dead, 870 bench.

[lacoy38]

Maybe Ralph should hire Travis Henry as the Bills "life coach", you know, just as soon

as he gets out of jail on those cocaine charges.

[RkFast]

Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right.

 

If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners.

 

Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why:

 

Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance.

 

The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships?

 

You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive.

 

Just my 2 lira (based on science).

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob in STL]

Everybody has a pet theory for why the Bills have missed the playoffs for over a decade. Some blame the players, some blame the front office, some even blame the owner who kept the team in Buffalo when he could have gotten a better stadium deal and made more money elsewhere. But those are just uninformed opinions. Opinions are like noses (clean version) - - everybody has one. But that doesn't make them right.

 

If you simply accept the non-controversial idea that substances like steroids that are deemed "performance-enhancing drugs" actually improve athletic performance, then you should take note of some recent scientific research. Scientists have unambiguously shown that men who are in committed relationships have lower testosterone levels than men who are not. In addition, men who assist their partners with child-raising duties suffer even greater drops in testosterone levels than men who assume the more traditional male role of being a provider and leaving child-raising duties to their partners.

 

Why should we as Bills fans care about this you ask? Here's why:

 

Scientists have long known that increased testosterone levels lead not only to greater virility, but to higher levels of aggression as well. Although further research may be needed to prove it, some scientists also believe that higher testosterone levels can lead to improved athletic performance.

 

The family values crowd won't like it, but this research provides a road map for building a successful football team. For at least the last decade, the Bills have placed a premium on drafting and signing "high-character" players. The unintended consequence has been a roster with too many guys who are in committed relationships, and even worse, who are more involved in raising their kids as compared to other NFL players. So they make great neighbors and members of society, but bad football players.

 

I'm not suggesting that we should draft or sign players who break the rules by artificially increasing their testosterone levels and risking long term adverse health affects. But c'mon, why would you intentionally draft or sign players whose off-the-field life situations make it clear that they will have lower testosterone levels than guys who aren't performing child-rearing duties and aren't in committed relationships?

 

You simply can't credibly argue that increased aggression is an undesireable trait in a football player. It's just one example, but I've read that Fitz has kids and is a great Dad. Well that's just great for his kids and his wife, and it makes him a desireable member of society as a whole. But maybe he wouldn't perform like a career back-up if he was single, prowling the city like Jim Kelly did, and had higher testosterone levels. If we are stuck with being way under the salary cap while Ralph owns the team, let's at least be smarter and draft or sign players that we can reasonably expect to be more aggressive.

 

Just my 2 lira (based on science).

 

 

While you cited valid research on testosterone levels in men, your application of it here is absurd.

[cosmo]

Football players already have higher testosterone levels than most men, so a slight difference due to relationship status would be negligible.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

You're entitled to your opinion - - but everybody has one. It's not research.

 

Here's just one article describing the recent research showing that a man's testosterone levels are adversely impacted by being in a committed relationship or sharing child-rearing duties:

 

http://blogs.scienti...one-fatherhood/

 

 

 

All right I'll bite. You can always get Hopeful onto the mat with the Science thing.

 

It isn't research? Neither is a blog stating "When men are partnered in long-term relationships or become parents, testosterone often declines"

 

In all biological measurements, there is always a "normal distribution" and a mean value. Even in cases where the difference in the means is statistically significant, the overlap of the distributions is often so broad that the measurement lacks predictive value.

That's what you're really talking about: an assertion that whether or not a football player is in a committed relationship/committed parent has predictive value for his performance on the field, which would allow us to make a prediction as to the performance of a player based upon his family status.

 

There are many factors which influence testosterone level, including physical activity, genetic factors, etc.

My guess is that football players overall are a strongly self-selected population that have testosterone levels at the high end of the normal range such that one can not properly extrapolate correlations from the general population.

 

So let's say we grant your (not scientifically referenced) assertion that testosterone levels are, in fact, lower in committed family men.

We would have to look at a relevant population (football players) and show that there is a statistically significant difference in levels between the family men and single men.

We would then have to show that there's a predictive correlation between testosterone levels during the season, and football performance.

That would enable us to make the link suggesting there is a relevant correlation between family status and football performance.

We would then have to look at whether it is a strong enough correlation to be predictive of an individual's performance.

 

That would be a valid research strategy. Anything else, would be hooey.

 

I don't want to rub it in, but Jim Kelly notoriously catting around and tieing one on before each of the 4 Super Bowl losses really served us well, didn't it?

Perhaps if he'd been "home dry and in bed with his wife" we might have won one?

 

Who said anything about wrecking the guy's home life? Just because I'm abrogating using the best available scientific research to make personnel decisions going forward, that doesn't mean that I would screw with the existing personal relationships of guys who are already on the team.

Normally I don't join the "English police" but this is too (unintentionally) good to pass up.

 

Definition of ABROGATE (transitive verb)1 : to abolish by authoritative action : annul 2: to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities> — ab·ro·ga·tion noun

So, you're treating the best scientific research as non-existent. I would say that's right on the money in fact, I don't think it's what you intend though.

 

[Sisyphean Bills]

Normally I don't join the "English police" but this is too (unintentionally) good to pass up.

 

Definition of ABROGATE (transitive verb)1 : to abolish by authoritative action : annul 2: to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities> — ab·ro·ga·tion noun

So, you're treating the best scientific research as non-existent. I would say that's right on the money in fact, I don't think it's what you intend though.

 

I figured it was a Fruedian slip or an intentional play to indicate the crayonzian nature of this trolling thread...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I figured it was a Fruedian slip or an intentional play to indicate the crayonzian nature of this trolling thread...

 

Great catch, Sisyphean. I can't believe that one got by me.

 

IcansleepwhenImdead = startling resemblence to Ieatcrayonz

 

Icansleep - try the lime green together with the burnt sienna. It's tasty!

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

While you cited valid research on testosterone levels in men, your application of it here is absurd.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --- Albert Einstein

 

By thinking they should place a premium on drafting and signing "high character" players, the Bills inadversely wound up with too many players who are in committed relationships or participate in raising children. I'm not blaming them for making those decisions early in the decade of losing, because the coralization between those life situations and lower testosterone levels wasn't clear then. But it is now, as shown by your admission that I cited valid research.

 

You find my application of it absurd only because you are using the same kind of thinking that the Bills used when they created the problem, e.i.e.i.o., that obtaining "high character" players improves your chances of winning football games. But the biological anthropologists' research, and the empirical evidence provided by a decade of losing, prove otherwise. Einstein would be disappointed at your inability to "think outside the box," to use a more modern phrase.

 

My original post says that more research may be needed to prove that increased testosterone levels improve athletic performance, even though the link between high testosterone levels and increased aggression is already known. You may find that "absurd," but the New York Times, in a 2006 article entitled "Does Testosterone Build A Better Athlete," agreed with me:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/fashion/10Fitness.html?pagewanted=all

 

“A long-term buildup of testosterone would produce results,” said Allan Mazur, a professor of public affairs at Syracuse University, who has studied how the natural hormones of college athletes fluctuate before and after competitions. “But we don’t know the short-term effects of using testosterone on an athlete’s performance, or whether it even has a short-term effect at all.”

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

“Steroids are not going to take someone without athletic ability and turn them into a star athlete, or teach you how to swing a bat and connect with the ball,” said Douglas A. Granger, the director of the behavioral endocrinology laboratory at Pennsylvania State University. “But if you have a certain athletic presence, testosterone could take you to the next level.”

 

Do you find the thinking of professors at Syracuse and Penn State absurd, too?