Should we hope the bills lose games, like Jerry Sullivan said?

[May Day 10]

I agree with sullivan. While it would be great if the bills went on an improbable run, its very unlikely to happen. The best scenario which is likely is them being in position to draft ryan mallett. I don't think he is implying that we or he is going to the miami game and should cheer whenever miami scores... or that the bills players and coaches should try to lose.

 

I am prepared for a 2 to 4 win season and I'm cool with it. I think they are going in the right direction. This is a full blown development and rebuilding season.

[DrFishfinder]

.....and as everyone knows, getting one of the top QB's in the draft is a guaranteed trip to the Super Bowl.

 

I submit:

Ryan Leaf

Akili Smith

Heath Schuler

Andre Ware

Todd Marinovich

Jim Druckenmiller

Rick Mirer

Jamarcus Russel

 

The best cure for losing is winning with what you've got, not playing the college QB lottery. Sullivan seems to have completely soured on the Bills. That's his right, but I see no value in him continually harping on it and I am not interested in his incessant negativity.

 

He sees crap. I see hope.

[LeviF]

Agreed. This team doesn't have a quarterback, and it needs one. If a top 5 draft pick is what it takes to eliminate that source of pain, and to turn it into a constant source of strength, then so be it.

Pick 3.5 would be great.

[ChasBB]

.....and as everyone knows, getting one of the top QB's in the draft is a guaranteed trip to the Super Bowl.

 

I submit:

Ryan Leaf

Akili Smith

Heath Schuler

Andre Ware

Todd Marinovich

Jim Druckenmiller

Rick Mirer

Jamarcus Russel

 

The best cure for losing is winning with what you've got, not playing the college QB lottery. Sullivan seems to have completely soured on the Bills. That's his right, but I see no value in him continually harping on it and I am not interested in his incessant negativity.

 

He sees crap. I see hope.

Great post! Gotta do everything possible to win NOW. The future is NOW.

[please stop the pain]

Or Peyton Manning. Or Matt Ryan.

 

Of course every draft pick is a crapshoot. But the further up the draft you go, the better your odds. You still have to make a good pick. But the odds of getting a chance at guys who have better chances of being great go up.

 

Losing is absolutely a remedy for a competitor. When we got OJ Simpson, it meant we became a better team. Same with Bruce Smith. The only reason we got those two was that we lost - an awful lot - the year before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do people throw up this straw man argument every time. Do you seriously think that Sully, or me, wanting the Bills to have a bad season is going to affect anyone at OBD? You think they're reading Sully and saying, "Gee, he has a point. I think we should lose and I won't give my all, even though my obscenely high salary depends on my playing (or GMing or coaching or ...) at a very high level."

 

Come on. The argument is only about fans desires and what would be better for the long-term prospects of the team. Nobody wants the Bills to not play their hardest.

 

I understand this argument but disagree. If this were a reasonable theory, we would see some kind of cycle within the NFL of falling to the bottom then rising to championships. I think Detroit would be a good example of how this wouldn't work. Dallas on the other hand.... May be a factor though, but if you think of any of the teams who have put together many years of playoff runs (Indy, NE) other factors effect outcome. These teams also tend to get good value in trades and good use of draft picks

[Orton's Arm]

What a high pick does is give you a much higher chance at being successful with a draft pick. A much higher chance. And if that means nothing to you, then you shouldn't have any problem with the Bills trading their first rounders for seventh rounders, straight up, over the next few years.

Well said! That has been a point I've been trying to make; but you said it better than I could have.

 

One of the fastest ways to build your team's talent level is to combine good talent evaluation with very early draft picks. Bill Polian getting the first overall pick and using it on Peyton Manning. The San Diego Chargers getting the first overall pick, and trading down to avoid Michael Vick. Instead, Butler took LaDanian Tomlinson 4th overall, and Drew Brees with the first pick of the second round.

 

Drew Brees has been cited both as an example of a franchise-level QB taken outside the first round. As well as an example of a franchise-level QB acquired through free agency. And as an example of a franchise-level QB who needed a long time to develop.

 

The fact of the matter is that Drew Brees stories on any level are extremely rare. Of the franchise-level QBs active today, how many were taken outside the first round? Drew Brees, of course. Tom Brady, who was drafted back in 2000. But since 2001--when Brees was drafted--it's difficult to think of any QBs taken outside the first round who have played at or near his level. Conversely, an abundance of very good quarterbacks have been drafted in the top five or ten picks. Matt Ryan. Philip Rivers. Carson Palmer. Eli Manning. (This past season, Eli had 7.9 yards per pass attempt, and a QB rating of 93.1. His brother Peyton also averaged 7.9 yards per attempt this past season, with a QB rating of 99.9)

[Rob's House]

Well said! That has been a point I've been trying to make; but you said it better than I could have.

 

One of the fastest ways to build your team's talent level is to combine good talent evaluation with very early draft picks. Bill Polian getting the first overall pick and using it on Peyton Manning. The San Diego Chargers getting the first overall pick, and trading down to avoid Michael Vick. Instead, Butler took LaDanian Tomlinson 4th overall, and Drew Brees with the first pick of the second round.

 

Drew Brees has been cited both as an example of a franchise-level QB taken outside the first round. As well as an example of a franchise-level QB acquired through free agency. And as an example of a franchise-level QB who needed a long time to develop.

 

The fact of the matter is that Drew Brees stories on any level are extremely rare. Of the franchise-level QBs active today, how many were taken outside the first round? Drew Brees, of course. Tom Brady, who was drafted back in 2000. But since 2001--when Brees was drafted--it's difficult to think of any QBs taken outside the first round who have played at or near his level. Conversely, an abundance of very good quarterbacks have been drafted in the top five or ten picks.

 

So are successful QBs taken in the top 10. Sure you've got Rivers and Manning and a few others, but for every Manning you've got a Tim Couch and Akili Smith to go with him. Your best bet is to have a team that ended the previous season on a winning streak who comes into camp with a head of steam and a ton of confidence. If you need that last piece to complete the puzzle you can usually trade up like the Jets did for dirty Mark or the Chargers for what's his name (RB).

[Orton's Arm]

So are successful QBs taken in the top 10. Sure you've got Rivers and Manning and a few others, but for every Manning you've got a Tim Couch and Akili Smith to go with him. Your best bet is to have a team that ended the previous season on a winning streak who comes into camp with a head of steam and a ton of confidence. If you need that last piece to complete the puzzle you can usually trade up like the Jets did for dirty Mark or the Chargers for what's his name (RB).

A lot of the first round QB busts that have occurred were drafted more because of their physical gifts than because of anything they'd proved as pocket passers at the college level. That's why it's so important to combine a good GM with an early draft pick. John Butler, for example, specifically avoided taking Vick, even though the Chargers needed a quarterback. Bill Polian chose Peyton Manning, even though a lot of the so-called experts out there felt he should have taken Ryan Leaf.

 

A good GM doesn't guarantee that your team will avoid busts with its early QB draft picks, any more than that good GM can guarantee the absence of busts at any position, anywhere in the draft. But the combination of good GM + early pick maximizes your odds of getting a very good QB indeed!

 

As an aside, one thing I'm worried about is the fact that Chan Gailey apparently wants a mobile QB for his offense. Any time you start looking overly hard for a QB with exceptional physical characteristics, there can be a tendency to de-emphasize mental traits. That is extremely problematic, because a quarterback's accuracy and ability to read defenses are the key ingredients to being a successful pocket passer. Conversely, Gailey's QB while with the Steelers was Kordell Stewart: a mobile QB who lacked the mental traits necessary to be a good pocket passer. I hope the Bills don't go the Kordell Stewart route under Gailey's influence. We did that once before, and ended up with Losman.

[BillsVet]

Sullivan seems to have completely soured on the Bills. That's his right, but I see no value in him continually harping on it and I am not interested in his incessant negativity.

 

He sees crap. I see hope.

 

I fail to see how Sullivan's perceived negativity is wrong considering the many years of non-playoff seasons this teams fanbase has endured. Hope is nice, but it should be tempered with a dose of reality. And until the team proves they're better than being a top-5 pick team with a weak foundation people like Sullivan won't write puff pieces hiding that fact.

[mpl6876]

I fail to see how Sullivan's perceived negativity is wrong considering the many years of non-playoff seasons this teams fanbase has endured. Hope is nice, but it should be tempered with a dose of reality. And until the team proves they're better than being a top-5 pick team with a weak foundation people like Sullivan won't write puff pieces hiding that fact.

 

Great post, It sure doesn't seem like a lot of fans here want to hold the front office accountable for their horrendous decision making over the years. I for one find Sully's articles insightful and brutally upfront and honest. At least, he seems to hold the organization accountable for their actions. Much like Larry Felser did. Also, the more I read Sal M's articles the more I agree with him. Plus one for he media for taking a realistic viewpoint and informing the fans. Generally, not a big media fan, but in this case I have to defend media. Spin it anyway you want, IMHO, all is not "rosey" at Bills One Drive... (Here come the troll statements)

[Orton's Arm]

I understand this argument but disagree. If this were a reasonable theory, we would see some kind of cycle within the NFL of falling to the bottom then rising to championships. I think Detroit would be a good example of how this wouldn't work. Dallas on the other hand.... May be a factor though, but if you think of any of the teams who have put together many years of playoff runs (Indy, NE) other factors effect outcome. These teams also tend to get good value in trades and good use of draft picks

I think there are several reasons why you don't see the cycle thing more often than you do:

 

1) It takes a while to determine whether any given draft pick will be a bust. Sure, a few draft picks blossom right away, but many or most successful NFL players needed a while to develop.

 

2) Even a good GM will still make mistakes in the draft, even with first round draft picks. Likewise, even a bad GM will still sometimes have successes in the draft, even with bad draft picks.

 

3) In part because of the first two factors, it takes a while to identify and replace the bad GMs of the league. Matt Millen, for example, held onto his job for a surprisingly long time. It took the Bills five years to get rid of TD.

 

4) A bad GM with early draft picks will typically achieve less than will a good GM with slightly lower picks. Guys in the first category are the ones picking the Akili Smiths and Jamarcus Russells of the league; while guys in the latter category find players like Aaron Rodgers.

 

5) Because of factor 4), a team with a good GM is very unlikely to bottom out, unless it's very early in that GM's tenure. Take the Chargers under the leadership of Butler and (later) AJ Smith. They only got top draft picks early in their regime. Since then, the team had a few good years and a few less good years, but they were never bad enough to get a very early pick. A good GM is more important than good draft position.

 

6) By the same token, it is rare for the bad teams to suddenly get good GMs. A Matt Millen team will tend to have a very early draft pick year after year, because a guy like Millen will largely squander whatever draft-day resources he's been given.

 

7) Typically, the only times you'll see the combination of a good GM and a very early draft pick are when a bad GM has just been fired, and his replacement has inherited a bad team someone else built. Bill Parcells in Miami. Bill Polian in Indianapolis. John Butler in San Diego.

 

8) When #7 happens, the good GMs almost always make good use out of their early picks. Parcells took Jake Long; a very good LT. Butler took LaDanian Tomlinson. Polian took Peyton Manning. Picks like those demonstrate the power of combining a good GM with a very early draft pick. However, it's very rare to see that combination, due to the factors listed above.

[Hossage]

Yeah, edwards, thank you for your analysis. It may add to your ideas that owners are held constant.

[Thurman#1]

.....and as everyone knows, getting one of the top QB's in the draft is a guaranteed trip to the Super Bowl.

 

I submit:

Ryan Leaf

Akili Smith

Heath Schuler

Andre Ware

Todd Marinovich

Jim Druckenmiller

Rick Mirer

Jamarcus Russel

 

The best cure for losing is winning with what you've got, not playing the college QB lottery. Sullivan seems to have completely soured on the Bills. That's his right, but I see no value in him continually harping on it and I am not interested in his incessant negativity.

 

He sees crap. I see hope.

 

 

 

And this data, those quarterbacks, destroy what argument?

 

Only one, the argument that getting one of the top QBs in the draft is a guarantee of winning. An argument which nobody made.

 

As has been said before, a high draft pick improves the odds of getting a great QB which greatly improves the odds of winning. A high draft pick certainly doesn't guarantee it, which is why nobody said it. Improving the odds, in all the myriad ways there are of doing it within the rules, is worth doing.

[Thurman#1]

So are successful QBs taken in the top 10. Sure you've got Rivers and Manning and a few others, but for every Manning you've got a Tim Couch and Akili Smith to go with him. Your best bet is to have a team that ended the previous season on a winning streak who comes into camp with a head of steam and a ton of confidence. If you need that last piece to complete the puzzle you can usually trade up like the Jets did for dirty Mark or the Chargers for what's his name (RB).

 

 

Yeah, but your best bet to "have a team that ended the previous season on a winning streak who comes into camp with a head of steam and a ton of confidence" is to get a good QB and develop a team around him. There are lots of stories over the years of teams being bad, drafting a QB high and becoming good. Not so many of teams trading up to get their QB and becoming good. Much fewer than the other kind. The odds are lower.

 

A quick example. The Bills wanted Roethlisberger and tried to trade ahead of Pittsburgh to get him. How did that work out? How would it have worked out if we had lost a game or two more the season before? This would be an entirely different team.

[SDS]

I'm sorry I had to stumble upon this monstrosity...

 

Jerry said nothing about hoping the Bills lose. He said "best for the franchise"... The OP misinterpreted Jerry and selectively left out portions to gather sympathy from the group.

 

For those you of who don't like Jerry's column, learn to separate the man from his work. You don't have to like or agree with what he writes, disagree if you want to. Calling him an !@#$ and wishing for an entire newspaper to shut down probably falls outside of "reasonable commentary".

 

There is this little thing called "sense of proportion". Many posters in this thread would do themselves a great service if they acquired some of that...