would you rather win out or loss out.

[RealityCheck]

You make a good point about the reaction of the fans in his scenario. I guess the GM isn't accountable to the fans, either. Or to the impact on the bottom line. Or to a host of things OTHER than making sure the worst QB on the team starts as to ensure a 1-15 record. Heck, why not just bring in ANYBODY to play the position seeing as how the goal is to suck enough to ensure a crack at a blue-chip QB?

 

It's settled then. Ryan Lindell is our next QB.

 

GO BILLS!!!

It's just like Major League.

[The Voice of Truth]

Win out. Period.

[Saint Doug]

Threads like this are an insult to the sport. Losing is not what competitors do. That kind of thinking is retarded. Condoning losing? Really?

 

This is the concrete way of thinking (and I use this term losely) about this question. Did Indy really lose out last year? There seems to be more way than one to win at this game.

 

Win out. The team needs to develop a winning atmosphere now. This draft doesnt have a team changer in it.

 

What happened to the "winning atmosphere" that was formed during the first half of last season?

[Orton's Arm]

Like I said earlier, the naivete around here can be staggering at times. The point that you know I made is that when the entire locker room sees obviously wrong personnel decisions being made, it undermines everything else the front office and coaches try to do. The best recent example of starting a QB without locker room buy-in is Losman for Bledsoe. Tore the locker room apart. How'd that work out for that GM?

 

 

 

Honeymoon period or not, your machinations at the QB position don't do anything to guarantee enough losses to secure your high draft pick. You have to screw up in other areas as well. But let's talk about the CURRENT Bills team, shall we? How are you going to ensure 1-15 next year? It's not like the Bills have a ton of vets past their prime or a lack of promising younger talent. I guess that means you cut Fitz, start Thigpen, and relegate Jackson to the backup spot? But yeah, you're not accountable to the players in the locker room so I'm sure they won't mind one bit as you seek to take a mediocre team backwards.

 

That's true. But a GM who purposely places his team in the best position to lose is just preceding someone else. You won't last long doing it that way. You just can't get a team to run for the bus every week unless you screw the pooch so badly that you won't last long. A losing GM still has to see incremental improvement. Your formula doesn't seem to include that requirement.

 

I'd still like to know how you're gonna get this team to 1-15 next year. This team. I'm all ears.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> Oh, so this thread isn't about whether or not the Bills should lose out? It's been about what we would all do as GM? I missed that.

 

You missed the point of my earlier text. If you want to miss the point again, you can go back and reread it.

 

> Like I said earlier, the naivete around here can be staggering at times. The point that you know I made is that

> when the entire locker room sees obviously wrong personnel decisions being made, it undermines everything

> else the front office and coaches try to do. The best recent example of starting a QB without locker room

> buy-in is Losman for Bledsoe. Tore the locker room apart. How'd that work out for that GM?

 

TD was fired because he went 5-11 in year five of his rebuilding plan. Not only was the team 5-11, many of its most important contributors were aging players in decline. TD got himself into that mess because of precisely the kind of short-sighted thinking you advocate.

 

> But a GM who purposely places his team in the best position to lose is just preceding someone else. You won't last long doing it that way.

 

You seem to be arguing that regardless of whether my strategy is good or bad for the team's long term future, it doesn't matter; because any GM who pursues it will soon be fired. Clearly, this strategy would require a strong relationship between the GM and the owner to work. And the GM would have to invest time with the owner each week, or even more frequently, in order to maintain and improve upon that relationship. The GM would also have to sell the owner on the concept of tanking the season to get that franchise QB.

 

Once the franchise QB is in place, winning games will become a lot easier; thereby greatly increasing the GM's job security.

[Pondslider]

I don't cheer for the team to lose, but if the Bills go 9-7 beating only .500 or sub .500 teams and bring everybody back that "winning atmosphere" isn't going to matter too much when they have a much harder schedule next year. If this group can't make the playoffs this year then they never will. Move on. If losing out is the only way to make that happen then it's best for everybody. Other teams have shown that you don't need 3-4 years to rebuild if you do it right. This idea that we have to keep a terrible GM and coach because hiring a good GM and coach will somehow set the team back is ludicrous. Obviously they'd have to lose out AND hire the right people which is easier said than done, but I'd rather take that chance than settle for mediocrity masquerading as progress.

 

Actually considering the QB class coming this year maybe it's best that they do win out and bring everybody back next year, because this group of guys going and that schedule might actually put the team in position to finally get a QB next year.

[K-9]

> Oh, so this thread isn't about whether or not the Bills should lose out? It's been about what we would all do as GM? I missed that.

 

You missed the point of my earlier text. If you want to miss the point again, you can go back and reread it.

 

> Like I said earlier, the naivete around here can be staggering at times. The point that you know I made is that

> when the entire locker room sees obviously wrong personnel decisions being made, it undermines everything

> else the front office and coaches try to do. The best recent example of starting a QB without locker room

> buy-in is Losman for Bledsoe. Tore the locker room apart. How'd that work out for that GM?

 

TD was fired because he went 5-11 in year five of his rebuilding plan. Not only was the team 5-11, many of its most important contributors were aging players in decline. TD got himself into that mess because of precisely the kind of short-sighted thinking you advocate.

 

> But a GM who purposely places his team in the best position to lose is just preceding someone else. You won't last long doing it that way.

 

You seem to be arguing that regardless of whether my strategy is good or bad for the team's long term future, it doesn't matter; because any GM who pursues it will soon be fired. Clearly, this strategy would require a strong relationship between the GM and the owner to work. And the GM would have to invest time with the owner each week, or even more frequently, in order to maintain and improve upon that relationship. The GM would also have to sell the owner on the concept of tanking the season to get that franchise QB.

 

Once the franchise QB is in place, winning games will become a lot easier; thereby greatly increasing the GM's job security.

 

I'm still waiting to hear how you implement this "strategy" with the Bills next season. Would you advocate making a pre-season announcement to the fans that the Bills, to use your words, will be exploring the "concept of tanking the season?" Do you envision refunds for ticket holders? Or do you surreptitiously engage in tanking the season but only you and Ralph are in on it? Do you let any of your team leaders in on the secret? Or are the players just in the dark?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[stinky finger]

Yeah. Try selling "lose games on purpose" in the locker room and see how far it gets you.

 

The level of naivete on this board is staggering sometimes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Yet it's no secret around the league that Buffalo isn't a free agent destination for those serious about winning. It took 100 mill to land Williams. Who did we bid against? Ourselves, right?

 

We're not taken seriously.

 

I'm guessing Bills realize what we all know to be true. You need a big time QB and a big time coach to win in this league. They know their chances for success is extremely thin. It would be naive to think otherwise.

[Nitro]

Win out. This is not the year to tank. The draft class has few, if any, can't miss, difference making stud players. The Bills missed out in getting such talent in previous drafts due to poor decision making (Whitner instead of Ngata) or feet of clay and not trading up. When the did trade up they did it at the end of the first round where talented bust often reside (Losman and McCargo).

[K-9]

Yet it's no secret around the league that Buffalo isn't a free agent destination for those serious about winning. It took 100 mill to land Williams. Who did we bid against? Ourselves, right?

 

We're not taken seriously.

 

I'm guessing Bills realize what we all know to be true. You need a big time QB and a big time coach to win in this league. They know their chances for success is extremely thin. It would be naive to think otherwise.

 

Nobody in their right mind with even a casual interest in the game wouldn't be acutely aware that you need a premier player at the most important position in sports in order to be successful.

 

Everybody knows that great coaches can only help the process.

 

That has nothing to do with tanking an entire season in order to do nothing more than enhance your chances at MAYBE getting one.

 

Of course Buffalo will have to overpay for marquee players. That's well established. That said, they landed the premier free agent available in spite of not having a franchise QB.

 

And while we will continue to be miles away until we get "that guy" there are more pieces in place now than there were a few years ago. We need to continue to build out the roster so that when we finally DO land our QB, there is enough of a team around him to accelerate the winning process.

 

GO BILLS!!!