The Good News :)

[Bill from NYC]

From a statistical viewpoint, picking #1 greatly increases a teams chances of winning the Super Bowl or even making the Super Bowl down the line. About 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was the number 1 pick of the entire draft (It was 30% the last time I ran the numbers, but Brady singlehandedly keeps bringing the number down). It's not just QBs, but they make the point the best. Imagine the Bills Super Bowl teams without Bruce Smith. Would they have been as good? Also, it obviously doesn't hurt the players attitude towards winning to suffer a bad season early in their careers. Guys like Reed, Smith & Talley went from AFC worst to eventually 1st & the reminder of being on the worst team in the NFL helped make them hate losing probably more than guys who have never been on a really bad team. Most of the guys on the bad teams were weeded out, just as most of this year's team won't be around for a Super Bowl. The bottom line is I'll take a 28% of winning the Super Bowl in a few years over the Bills current 0% if the team has to field a bad team with a very tough schedule for 1 more year.

Harvey, what's up Bro???!!!

 

I hope all is well!

[PolishDave]

From a statistical viewpoint, picking #1 greatly increases a teams chances of winning the Super Bowl or even making the Super Bowl down the line. About 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was the number 1 pick of the entire draft (It was 30% the last time I ran the numbers, but Brady singlehandedly keeps bringing the number down). It's not just QBs, but they make the point the best. Imagine the Bills Super Bowl teams without Bruce Smith. Would they have been as good? Also, it obviously doesn't hurt the players attitude towards winning to suffer a bad season early in their careers. Guys like Reed, Smith & Talley went from AFC worst to eventually 1st & the reminder of being on the worst team in the NFL helped make them hate losing probably more than guys who have never been on a really bad team. Most of the guys on the bad teams were weeded out, just as most of this year's team won't be around for a Super Bowl. The bottom line is I'll take a 28% of winning the Super Bowl in a few years over the Bills current 0% if the team has to field a bad team with a very tough schedule for 1 more year.

 

So by your own math, logic and reasoning - then the Bills have a much better chance of winning a Superbowl 100-28=72% if they don't draft the first QB overall in the draft next year.

 

72% is a lot better than 28%

 

So, I guess they should try to win then.

 

See how that works.

Edited August 28, 2017 by PolishDave

[bisonbrigade]

Bills go 5-11 and Jets sweep them. Best year ever. pick in top 2 picks select a franchise QB. Petermen looks to be a solid backup QB.

 

Why Tank?

 

1st Round picks Mason Rudolph QB, Oklahoma St & James Washington WR Oklahoma St. Built In chemistry.

2nd round picks Jamarco Jones OT, Ohio St & Billy Price OG Ohio St, Built in Chemistry

3rd round picks, Lowell Lotulelei DT Utah, Jordan Whitehead S Pittsburgh & (comp pick) Chris Worley OLB Ohio St.

Edited August 28, 2017 by bisonbrigade

[Albany,n.y.]

Harvey, what's up Bro???!!!

 

I hope all is well!

I've been retired for 7 years now. Petrino just retired last month & 4 of us went down to Newburgh for his retirement party last Friday. I'm down to 1 home game a year-in Petrino's other seat (probably Denver) & a road game-this year it's going to be in LA on 11/19.

It's good to see you're recovered & posting again-I kept track when your daughter posted about you.

[Albany,n.y.]

 

So by your own math, logic and reasoning - then the Bills have a much better chance of winning a Superbowl 100-28=72% if they don't draft the first QB overall in the draft next year.

 

72% is a lot better than 28%

 

So, I guess they should try to win then.

 

See how that works.

Real math works a little differently than what you stated. The odds of winning the Super Bowl without regard to talent level is 3.125% (1 out of 32). In 51 Super Bowls the math says each team should have won 1 or 2 of them. The Bills current Super Bowl win % is 0. Their Super Bowl appearance odds are 6.25%. The Bills are just slightly above that, appearing in 7.84% of all Super Bowls. However, 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall pick QB. Considering how many other QBs have been drafted who were not the number 1 overall pick, 28% far exceeds the expected statistical percentage of any given QB winning a Super Bowl. With 32 starters in the NFL, the odds of any given QB starting & winning a Super Bowl each year goes back to the 1 in 32 or 3.125%. To exceed that by more than 5 times shows how powerfully a team with a #1 overall QB increases their chances of fielding a Super Bowl champion.

[PolishDave]

Real math works a little differently than what you stated. The odds of winning the Super Bowl without regard to talent level is 3.125% (1 out of 32). In 51 Super Bowls the math says each team should have won 1 or 2 of them. The Bills current Super Bowl win % is 0. Their Super Bowl appearance odds are 6.25%. The Bills are just slightly above that, appearing in 7.84% of all Super Bowls. However, 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall pick QB. Considering how many other QBs have been drafted who were not the number 1 overall pick, 28% far exceeds the expected statistical percentage of any given QB winning a Super Bowl. With 32 starters in the NFL, the odds of any given QB starting & winning a Super Bowl each year goes back to the 1 in 32 or 3.125%. To exceed that by more than 5 times shows how powerfully a team with a #1 overall QB increases their chances of fielding a Super Bowl champion.

Real math? It's your math dude.

 

Assuming your stats are accurate:

 

If 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall QB pick, then 72% were won by a QB who wasn't a former #1 overall QB pick.

 

Once again, give me the 72% chance instead of the 28% chance you are claiming exists. Why would you want to have worse odds?

 

You are trying to make a point by using statistics that show you are exactly wrong.

 

Hey, they're your numbers dude. I didn't make the claim. You did.

 

You aren't using the right statistics to make your case - if there is even a case to be made for what you are claiming.

[Fadingpain]

I just hope McD can quietly hang tough through what will be a tough season.

It is imperative that he figures out who his guys are and starts setting the table for next year.

His guys are all replaceable.

 

What matters is getting the QB. Everything else should be a distant second concern.

[Albany,n.y.]

Real math? It's your math dude.

 

Assuming your stats are accurate:

 

If 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall QB pick, then 72% were won by a QB who wasn't a former #1 overall QB pick.

 

Once again, give me the 72% chance instead of the 28% chance you are claiming exists. Why would you want to have worse odds?

 

You are trying to make a point by using statistics that show you are exactly wrong.

 

Hey, they're your numbers dude. I didn't make the claim. You did.

 

You aren't using the right statistics to make your case - if there is even a case to be made for what you are claiming.

Not including the 2017 draft: Total QBs drafted between 1967 & 2016: 565

#1 QB picks in the draft since the Super Bowl 22, number of other QB drafted during the past 51 years who were not the 1st pick-543 (565-22). Super Bowl winning #1 QB pick 6 (all of them multiple winners) 6/22 =27.27%, # of Super Bowls 51 Number won by #1 overall QB pick 14. 14/51 =27.45%.

 

Number of QBs drafted since 1967 : 565. Number of Super Bowls won by one of these or an undrafted QB 37. 37/543= 6.81%

.

The real math shows the #1 pick who was a QB who has gone on to win the Super Bowl 27% (rounded down), The percentage of QBs not drafted #1 who have gone on to win a Super Bowl 7% (rounded up).

 

If you want to see all the QBs drafted here they are: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

Edited August 28, 2017 by Albany,n.y.

[Rockinon]

Losing is the only answer, no more than 4 wins is acceptable. I WANT A FRANCHISE QB, you can keep your 8-8 season.

Naw, let KC do all the losing.

[dulles]

Real math? It's your math dude.

 

Assuming your stats are accurate:

 

If 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall QB pick, then 72% were won by a QB who wasn't a former #1 overall QB pick.

 

Once again, give me the 72% chance instead of the 28% chance you are claiming exists. Why would you want to have worse odds?

 

You are trying to make a point by using statistics that show you are exactly wrong.

 

Hey, they're your numbers dude. I didn't make the claim. You did.

 

You aren't using the right statistics to make your case - if there is even a case to be made for what you are claiming.

The problem with your logic is this: we don't get all the other qb's in the draft. We only get one real shot over few years (because you have to give time for development and assessment). Since we only get a limited number of shots, might as well take the shot with the highest percentage of success.

[Punching Bag]

1-15 would be great, win against New England.

 

Just change your alias to bisonloserbrigade,

[major]

Put yourself in one of our players shoes right now. What are their thoughts? I'm thinking they know they are all out of there soon. If I'm right, how hard do they play?

[billsfan60]

After 17 years of frustration, if tanking this year is the only way to replace Jim Kelly, I'm in.

 

I would prefer to have Tyrod as QB while we tank, instead of Peterman.

 

Tyrod has already made his millions and can retire tomorrow.

 

I'd hate to ask Peterman to sacrifice his career for this...................but, these are desperate times.

There's an equal chance Nate settles in and gets us to 7-9 or 8-8. and that would be a season worth watching. Just have a feeling if taylor isn't available for the jet game, Peterman will have done enough to win the job. He's shown improvement every week. It's scary the whole season may come down to a rookie QB, a rookie head coach, a 4th preseason game and beating the jests in week one, but that's what it feels like.

[leonbus23]

Real math? It's your math dude.

 

Assuming your stats are accurate:

 

If 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall QB pick, then 72% were won by a QB who wasn't a former #1 overall QB pick.

 

Once again, give me the 72% chance instead of the 28% chance you are claiming exists. Why would you want to have worse odds?

 

You are trying to make a point by using statistics that show you are exactly wrong.

 

Hey, they're your numbers dude. I didn't make the claim. You did.

 

You aren't using the right statistics to make your case - if there is even a case to be made for what you are claiming.

Dave. I hate to stereotype, but...ahh...um...nevermind.

[billsfan60]

Real math? It's your math dude.

 

Assuming your stats are accurate:

 

If 28% of all Super Bowls have been won by a QB who was a former #1 overall QB pick, then 72% were won by a QB who wasn't a former #1 overall QB pick.

 

Once again, give me the 72% chance instead of the 28% chance you are claiming exists. Why would you want to have worse odds?

 

You are trying to make a point by using statistics that show you are exactly wrong.

 

Hey, they're your numbers dude. I didn't make the claim. You did.

 

You aren't using the right statistics to make your case - if there is even a case to be made for what you are claiming.

The perfect example of why statistics are fundamentally flawed.

[Paup 1995MVP]

Picking top 5 isn't acceptable because we aren't a bottom 5 team. Losing ISNT ACCEPTABLE. Just because we are used to it doesn't make it acceptable. You always try to win and we are better than 4-12

 

Changing culture doesn't come from tanking

I agree 716. Losing is NEVER acceptable. I remember the 2001 season of 3-13. Just awful. Sure we were a young team, but the defense was awful, and our QB's were Rob Johnson and Alex Van Pelt. Enuf said. I don't think McDermott will stomach and tolerate the losing well. And that's a good thing. It could be a revolving door of players all season long. But get the O line in order if nothing else. No excuse to have Mills and Ducasse playing together. My goodness. Where is Jerry Ostroski and John Fina when you need them?

[LABILLBACKER]

Losing is the only answer, no more than 4 wins is acceptable. I WANT A FRANCHISE QB, you can keep your 8-8 season.

Completely agree. Embrace the tank, rebuild, whatever you want to call it. I'm sick and tired of the 7-8 win season's. We've already have a boatload of picks and could get a few more. Go out and get Darnold or Allen. Peterman will be a very serviceable backup. Get you franchise QB once and for all. Let McB do a full purge and get their guys for their scheme. Give them 5 years to build it.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

The rebuild will not be complete until all of the players Whaley drafted or traded for are off this team. I'm guessing a 4 year purge.

[Billsguy]

New slogan for the Bills

 

"One Bills Drive: Where Hope Goes to Die"

[Boatdrinks]

There's an equal chance Nate settles in and gets us to 7-9 or 8-8. and that would be a season worth watching. Just have a feeling if taylor isn't available for the jet game, Peterman will have done enough to win the job. He's shown improvement every week. It's scary the whole season may come down to a rookie QB, a rookie head coach, a 4th preseason game and beating the jests in week one, but that's what it feels like.

This team would be lucky to get to 4-12 with Peterman at the helm. There is now way an NFL coach hands the reins over to a flat out rookie after 1 game regardless of the outcome. Taylor starts when he's healthy. If he loses say 4 in a row, Peterman might get a look then .