ALLEN1QB Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Whats the point they would just draft the wrong player anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 But, we as fans, are not playing the games. The Bills players are. Therefore, there's a clear distinction of what fans want and what players strive for. I don't think anyone here wants the Bills to purposely tank the season (although I have my doubts sometimes). But, if they were to give an effort, their current effort, but still lose out, I don't see any problem there. Winning insignificant games against last place NFC teams have hurt is more than helped us. But we have shown complete ineptitude in trying to draft a franchise QB from the 6-10th position. It just hasn't happened. It's like the Bills are waiting for lightening to strike when it's not even raining. In contrast, although there are no guarantees, there's not one person on this board who would admit that the chances of getting a franchise QB are equal between picks 1-6 versus picks 6-10. The problem is who defines a franchise QB? Are we talking, when a team picks, they think that person is a franchise QB or is a franchise QB determined after they have been in the league and proved it. Because there have been MANY QBs picked number 1, that have amounted to nothing, eventhough I'm sure the team picking them thought they were "franchise" QB. Likewise there have been many QB's picked later that have become "franchise" QBs. I honestly don't have the time, but I'm sure if you looked at QB's picked 1-5 and QB's picked 6-10, the amount that have turned into "franchise" Qb's would be pretty equal and would probably suprise you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Because people pay for expensive tickets, parking, food, etc. in order to see an actual game. If one of the teams is trying to lose, and that includes "resting" starters in late season games, the game is a fraud and all monies should be returned to the customers who paid to see it. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 But if we started losing games we'd break the near-constant cycle of 6 or 7 win seasons getting us a draft pick in the 10-15 range - where's the fun in that? The Buffalo Bills - consistent for the past 13 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBD Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) I'm sure if you looked at QB's picked 1-5 and QB's picked 6-10, the amount that have turned into "franchise" Qb's would be pretty equal and would probably suprise you. 2012 #1 Luck, #2 Griffin, #8 Tannehill 2011 #1 Newton, #8 Locker, #10 Gabbert 2010 #1 Bradford 2009 #1 Stafford, #5 Sanchez 2008 #3 Ryan 2007 #1 Russell 2006 #3 Young, #10 Leinart 2005 #1 Smith 2004 #1 Manning, #4 Rivers 2003 #1 Palmer, #7 Leftwich The one surprising thing is the lack of guys selected in that range. Edited November 8, 2012 by Carey Bender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) 2012 #1 Luck, #2 Griffin, #8 Tannehill 2011 #1 Newton, #10 Gabbert 2010 #1 Bradford 2009 #1 Stafford, #5 Sanchez 2008 #3 Ryan 2007 #1 Russell 2006 #3 Young, #10 Leinart 2005 #1 Smith 2004 #1 Manning, #4 Rivers 2003 #1 Palmer, #7 Leftwich The one surprising thing is the lack of guys selected in that range. I think this proves my point. 2003 - Palmer/Leftwich, both I think we could consider not "franchise" QB's 2004 - Manning could be consider a "franchise" Qb as he's won 2 SBs. I'm weary to call Rivers that as he hasn't even been to the SB with the Chargers. 2005 - Smith is a game manager. 2006 - Young is out of the league. Linehart is/was a backup 2007 - Russell is out of the league 2008 - Jury is still out of Stafford. Sanchez is definitely not a "franchise" QB 2009 - Ryan seems like a legit QB. Hasn't been able to get it done in the playoffs. Maybe this year is his year? 2010 - Bradford is developing. Still too early. 2011 - After an amazing 1st season, Newton is in a sophmore slump, so still too eary. Gabbert is turning out to be a bust 2012 - Obviously to early for all of these to tell. So basically since 2003 there has been 1, maybe 2 legitimate "franchise" QBs picked in picks 1-5. And thats however you want to define "franchise." Meanwhile, Rodgers, Brees and Roethisberger were all picked after picks 1-5 and have won SB's. They would be right up there as "franchise" QB's. Edited November 8, 2012 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) 2012 #1 Luck, #2 Griffin, #8 Tannehill 2011 #1 Newton, #10 Gabbert 2010 #1 Bradford 2009 #1 Stafford, #5 Sanchez 2008 #3 Ryan 2007 #1 Russell 2006 #3 Young, #10 Leinart 2005 #1 Smith 2004 #1 Manning, #4 Rivers 2003 #1 Palmer, #7 Leftwich The one surprising thing is the lack of guys selected in that range. Atleast locker is missing in that range- not sure if any others? Open it to pick 11 and you can get guys like cutler and Big Ben included too Edited November 8, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 I get the idea and premise behind what the OP is saying, but... no pick is a lock or gurantee. Andrew Luck is possibly a once in a decade pick. Is there a pick like that this year? Probably not. So basically, you tank the season and take a 50/50 chance on a QB or whoever. Lets say that QB doesn't do well, now the cycle starts again. And it keeps happening over and over and over again. Meanwhile you've lost the fan base and possibly the money to keep the team. Aslo, players are as good as the organization they are brought into. There have been a few responses mentioning that there is no "sure thing" and that you can find talent late in rounds or in the later rounds. The issue is that, just like with anything else, the prospects of finding that impactful, stud, franchise player increases when you can pick from 30 choices versus picking from 3 choices. It simply in the averages. The concern I have with the "fans buy tickets to enjoy a competitive game" responses is that it presupposes that fans are concerned with nothing beyond that insular experience. I don't believe that. I think that your average fan desires an overall competitive product that is sustainable. I think that being a football fan is more analagous to buying a car or other consumer good than it is to, say, attending a theme park. You don't want your car to work well for just one day or even one month. You make an investment into it with hopes that it will continue to provide value and utility for the forseeable future. I think that the "want to see a competitive game" approach assumes that a football game is simply a transient entertainment experience. You go to a theme park for transient entertainment because you don't take anything from the experience but that snapshot in time. It's kind of like fireworks - a semi-brilliant display but forgotten by morning. Football and fandom is different. We make an emotional investment and expect a consistent ROI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts