1B4IDie

Bill Polian is an outlier and goes back to my point that if you put talented players in good organizations they tend to do well no matter where they are drafted. Peyton Manning and Bruce Smith are both 1 in every 10 or 20 year players or maybe once in a lifetime. You can't plan a franchise's direction by strategically losing in order to win a lottery with no guaranteed payout. Strategically losing is only plausable if a GM has identified a player that they believe is of a franchise changing nature, a 1 out of every 10 or 20 year player. Certaintly Edge and Kerry Collins Do Not fit that Bill. Certainly the only player in the 2010 draft that could be possibly considered that special may be Andrew Luck and there is not any guarantee he will be there. So yes drafting Bruce Smith at #1 overall is a franchise changer but getting Warren Sapp at #12 changed the Tampa Bay Bucs. A strategy of strategically losing breeds continually losing. When do you decide to start strategically winning? It's the most prudent course to always strategically win.

Kornheiser and Willbon talk about the lovable losing Billy Goats every Sunday, that was cute.

So if Luck and Mallet do not declare what is the larger strategic goal? Marcell Dareus? I see your point that GM's need to be strategic, but the NFL draft is not a reason to lose games. If Andrew Luck were a senior or committed to entering the draft he may be a once every 10 or 20 year player where the possibility of losing to gain draft position to draft the player may not be insane but even then there are so many uncertainties surrounding the players and the draft order that losing is probably not the best strategic course. The idea that you lose games because is probably flawed. If you were to look at a draft success rate. Player's drafted into good programs, like the Pats, Ravens, and Steelers tend to do better than players drafted into the Lions, Bills, and Redskins regardless of the draft position.We're talking about the top 32 players out of thousands of college football players, the difference in player potential is extremely small from #1 to #25. Yes GMs need to be strategic, but losing games for a higher draft pick has too much uncertainty even with Andre Luck in the mix to be a sound strategy. Getting wins to build confidence in the players under the current roster that will definitely be there in 2011 is most likely the best strategy.

That is not at all what I mean. Your mathematical logician attitude of sports is blinding you to the fact that sports are not logical. Trying to apply some empirical mathematical formula to draft picks and then use that formula to ask a coach and GM to lose games on purpose to increase the imaginary value of their draft picks is foolish. There is no guarantee that a player you draft at #2 will change your franchise anymore than the player you draft at #22. If you ask men that risk their health every Sunday to purposely lose a game you are sending the wrong message to the players, the coaches and the fans. You play to win the game. It is a simple concept that you seem to be struggling with.

He passed the Bills physical then was injured in practice. I think you can't waive someone that was injured while under contract. You have to do what the chargers did or reach an injury settlement like with Mitchell. Maybe he settles for cheap because he knows he scammed the Bills. If the settle for a million or less it would seem likely. Whoever did the physical needs to have their medical licenses checked if this news is true, its seems suspicious, that he was game worthy one day than a few minutes into practice his previously injured achilles to the point that he is done for the season.

The Billy Goats will pick out used up O-Line and LBs from other teams garbage can. Can someone explain the Chargers and Falcons one to me? Is that supposed to be a Lighting Bolt in the shape of a question mark?

And if the Bills win 3 more games in 1997 they could have drafted Randy Moss. A GM that decides to lose games to get a higher draft position in the crap shoot that is the NFL draft won't be a GM for very long. You should stick with playing Franchise mode in Madden.

In professional sports You play to win the game. If it were logical that the wins were meaningless why does any team that is out of playoff contention in any sport still play? Once you're eliminated from the playoffs then the teams should just stop playing by your logic. Playing to win is the whole point of sport. If you don't understand that concept you should go watch Glee or play video games.

Sounds like worse case scenario. Oh Well, Ralphie spent 2 mil and took a chance. Its not like you have to worry about the cap. No harm no foul.

Mathews' Bag is dead on, Let's just bench one of the only guys that is killing himself week in and out, so "we can see what we got." Genius!

Was it just too early? You didn't see the sarcasm? I think its a grand idea. By Then "Mayhem" Maybin will have gained enough weight to play in the NFL. We will have a HOFer on both sides of the ball.

What 4the round guy are you talking about? What does the 20 million have to do with anything? It's a slotted system it dorsnt matter who you draft at 9 they get 20 mil it gas nothing to do with Spiller. Spiller doesn't have 1000 yards rushing and recieving through the first 8 games, it's a bust. It's a bust! The sky is falling!

I owe you a for that one. I couldn't stop laughing.

No. You can probably write it yourself. "I'm focused on the next game and I'm going to work real hard. I'm not worried about the NFL just worried about the next game and working real hard. My family and I will sit down and decide in the offseason, but I'm just focused on working real hard and winning on Saturday. . . .blahdy blahdy blah."

If you would have made this, "who is the second best Bills HC" it would have been more interesting. Levy's run at GM, soured his rep, but really did you think it would be anything but overwhelming support for Levy as the best?

Next he is going to release his Hall of Fame induction speech. He needs to moonlight at Jim's Steakout and start eating the leftovers. Get the man some food, he could get up to 265 with a nightly dose of a chicken finger sub and some tacos.

Astrobot, BTW I've given you praise on your sight before. As a dynasty league Fantasy Football nut, and a fan of a franchise that picks in or around the Top 10 every year, I keep track of the upcoming draft pretty closely and you guys are one of the best, if not the best. Did you guy consider putting astericks on undergrads? When looking at your board I'm not sure which Big Nasties would be there if 2011 ends up being a Senior only draft, as players may be drafted in the NHLPA picket lines. Rookies having to carry the signs will have to surfice for rookie hazing next year. Also what are your and or Drafttek's thought on this thread? Signing 2011 draft picks Why would an owner pay a player they are going to lock out? http://74.86.102.230/topic/123078-signing-2011-draft-picks/

Right, Thats kind of the reason for this thread. I don't see how owners would draw up any huge contract for the 2011 draft. Thats why I doubt that Luck or Mallet or anyone will eligibility left will come out in the 2011 draft. You'll be drafted to the picket lines for the NFLPA. Unless I'm missing something, which I may be, it seems a lot more likely the Top tier undergrads will stay in a year until the CBA is straightened out.

I am saying the Mort report has no feet to stand on, its pure conjecture with nothing to back it up. The Levitre Wang and Wood report says there will be a rookie performance plan in place for 2011 draftees.

What is the fascination with Brohm? Seriously, I don't get it. Fitzy is playing well and he is 28 years old, seems like a pretty good find. Does any one really think that he is going to perform better than Fitzy has? Why bother? Seems like a total waste of time and effort to bench Fitzy just to see what the back up QB can do. If anyone thinks he has a better upside than Mallet or Luck, I would like to know what you're smoking. Although its probably a hallucinatory drug, so maybe you're eating Shrooms to make you hallucinate that Brohm might be a viable option at QB over Luck or Mallet or maybe your mainlining some heroin. I don't get it. I don't think it can be logically explained. We found a decent option and QB, Brohm has never shown anything in preseason and must not be showing anything in practice to make anyone think he is an option, yet someone is demanding he start, "so we know what we have." We do know what we have though, a backup QB.

The Problem is both articles have the same source. Chris Mortenson says it won't effect the 2011 draft even though the first line of teh article says that Roger Godell says that 2011 would be the first draft that would possibly be effected. I've seen the Mort Report's info before, and usually he's good but this is a little bit bigger than asking agents and inside sources what they think. This is a negotiation that is in process. Given that both sides are not opposed to a rookie salary cap, I would be surprised if owners pop off 60 million dollar contracts for 2011, it seems likely that the teams and owners would agree to start the "Proven Performance Plan" in 2011. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810 Will a new CBA result in an NBA-style rookie wage scale? You betcha. Again, the union won’t automatically yield on this issue, instead using it as a means of placating owners in exchange for a better overall deal. But in reality, the majority of players believe that the current system – in which the players picked at the very top of the draft receive more guaranteed money than established veteran stars – is a travesty. (For example, this year’s top overall pick, Sam Bradford(notes), got a deal that will guarantee him at least $50 million, more than Brady, a three-time Super Bowl champion, is likely to receive if he and the Patriots reach a deal on a contract extension this week.) Most current players quarrel with the logic behind such a slotting system and aren’t sympathetic to the plight of the future draftees who’ll stand to make less. The players, in fact, have already put forth a proposal that would implement a rookie wage scale, sending a letter to the league last February detailing a “Proven Performance Plan.” The plan called for rookie deals to be reduced in length to three years – the union later said it would agree to a four-year threshold – and created a revenue pool that would fund incentives for players who outperform their contracts (such as the Titans’ Chris Johnson rushing for more than 2,000 yards in his second season) and benefit retired players. Some owners believe that the savings should be spread out to include veterans with low-to-mid-level salaries, providing them with a means of realizing performance bonuses. However the two sides decide to redistribute the money saved, look for the mind-boggling rookie contracts like Bradford’s to disappear under the new CBA.

Thats actually good news. Do you have a link? If the lockout starts that early, then its likely it can be resolved before training camp. I think that the 2010 Free Agency hurt teams the worst. Player's that could have been Free Agents were Restricted Free Agents, Basically you had to be in the league for 6 years to be a Free Agent like Julian Peppers. Meaning there were only 28+ year old's in free agency. Good news is unless the Bills signed 3 LBs and an OT in Free agency their needs wouldn't really change. I don't think delayed free agency will effect the 2011 Bills too much. If the CBA is ironed out in April or May, I'd be very happy.

The NFLPA has told the players prepare for a lockout because it all but certain there will be a lockout, they just don't know if it will be 12 days or 12 months. When I think about the 2011 draft and the looming lockout, I don't understand why an owner would sign a drafted player until the CBA is finalized. If owners know they are going to lockout players why would they sign and pay huge money to rookies that won't play? They don't lose anything by waiting until the Lockout is over to sign rookies, they own the rights until the next draft (see Michael Crabtree incident). One of the major issues in the labor negotiations is rookie salary cap, the NFLPA isn't completely opposed to some sort of rookie salary cap. So again why would a team pay the #1 pick 65+ mil in guaranteed money with a huge signing bonus then lock the players out, partly in order to fix the huge Round 1 salaries? Can someone please point out where I might be missing something? To me it seems like Sam Bradford received the last gigantic Pick #1 contract.

These links are dated. No one knows what will happen for sure. When I roll this this around I come up with this: If owners know they are going to lockout players why would they sign and pay huge money to rookies that won't play? They don't lose anything by waiting until the Lockout is over to sign rookies, they own the rights until February. One of the major issues in the labor negotiations is rookie salary cap, the NFLPA isn't completely opposed to some sort of rookie salary cap. So again why would a team pay the #1 pick 65+ mil in guaranteed money with a huge signing bonus then lock the players out?

If owners know they are going to lockout players why would they sign and pay huge money to rookies that won't play? They don't lose anything by waiting until the Lockout is over to sign rookies, they own the rights until February. One of the major issues in the labor negotiations is rookie salary cap, the NFLPA isn't completely opposed to some sort of rookie salary cap. So again why would a team pay the #1 pick 65+ mil in guaranteed money with a huge signing bonus then lock the players out?