The 'Second Coming' (of Jim Kelly)

[billsfreak]

His post was intended as sarcasm. This is his way of (again) attempting to heap ridicule on those who would like to see the Bills lose games in order to draft Luck. The reason the Senator feels the need to ridicule those with that opinion is because he'd prefer to see the Bills pile up meaningless wins this season, instead of attaining high draft position. Thus far, I have not seen him articulate a cogent reason why he thinks meaningless wins are somehow better than adding elite-level talent through early draft picks. But he's attempting to make up for his absence of a logical point through sheer repetition.

As was my post intended as sarcasm, but no fan, player, owner, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, gay boyfriend or whatever can watch a game and hope their team loses. If you or anyone does, you probably need to go play tiddlewinks with a preschool blind kid, because you aren't a Bills fan. Do you really think drafting a place or two higher will help this front office do good on draft day? The Patriots pick 20-25 picks after us each year, but seem to get much better players, as do the Steelers, Ravens,and a few other teams in the league. Until they hire an NFL caliber front office and coaching staff, the Bills will be one of the few teams that on draft day players cross their fingers and hope they don't get picked by them-much like Jim Kelly did in 1983.

[Orton's Arm]

As was my post intended as sarcasm, but no fan, player, owner, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, gay boyfriend or whatever can watch a game and hope their team loses. If you or anyone does, you probably need to go play tiddlewinks with a preschool blind kid, because you aren't a Bills fan. Do you really think drafting a place or two higher will help this front office do good on draft day? The Patriots pick 20-25 picks after us each year, but seem to get much better players, as do the Steelers, Ravens,and a few other teams in the league. Until they hire an NFL caliber front office and coaching staff, the Bills will be one of the few teams that on draft day players cross their fingers and hope they don't get picked by them-much like Jim Kelly did in 1983.

Wanting what's best for the team in the long-run (as I do) does not make me less of a fan than someone who wants what's best for the team over the short-term, while completely ignoring the long-run (as you do). You are basing your positions on emotion (the pain of watching the Bills lose on Sundays), instead of thinking in terms of a logical, concrete plan to get the Bills the elite players absolutely necessary for long-term success.

 

Your statement about the Patriots drafting 20 -25 each year is incorrect. One year the Patriots traded away two picks later on in the first round in order to obtain a top-10 pick. Another year they traded away their first round pick that year for San Francisco's first rounder in next year's draft. (The theory was that the 49ers' pick would be higher up in the draft.) The Patriots have also traded away various players over the years for first rounders: Drew Bledsoe comes to mind, but there have been others as well.

 

If you feel Nix is a good GM, you should want him to have picks as good as possible in order to gather talent quickly. That means losing games. But since you feel otherwise; you should also want the Bills to lose a lot of games; in order to get Nix fired as quickly as possible. In neither case would it help the team to pile up a bunch of meaningless wins.

[1B4IDie]

You are thinking like a player when you should be thinking like a general manager.

 

Suppose that in 1997 the Colts had gone 7-9. (Instead of the 1-15 record they actually complied.) Peyton Manning would be a member of some other team. The Colts wouldn't have earned that Super Bowl ring.

 

Games are won or lost by the players, and your best players are acquired primarily through the draft.

 

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

You've made a number of bad points in your post (as well as one good one). You seem to be using the Randy Moss example to imply that a later draft pick is just as valuable as an earlier one. That is, of course, wrong, as any GM will be happy to tell you. Your comment about franchise mode was of course nonsensical. But you did make a good point about how a GM will get fired if he loses too many games. Nix is still in his honeymoon period, and can afford to lose some games. But I agree that if he goes 1-15 in year 2 or 3 of the rebuilding program, his job would be in serious jeopardy.

[thurst44]

You are thinking like a player when you should be thinking like a general manager.

 

Suppose that in 1997 the Colts had gone 7-9. (Instead of the 1-15 record they actually complied.) Peyton Manning would be a member of some other team. The Colts wouldn't have earned that Super Bowl ring.

 

Games are won or lost by the players, and your best players are acquired primarily through the draft.

 

I'm sure San Diego is happy they lost enough games to snag Ryan Leaf instead of getting stuck with some loser like Charles Woodson or Kyle Turley or Tra Thomas or Fred Taylor or Keith Brooking...imagine if they had a winning season, they might have even had to settle for Randy Moss.

[1B4IDie]

You've made a number of bad points in your post (as well as one good one). You seem to be using the Randy Moss example to imply that a later draft pick is just as valuable as an earlier one. That is, of course, wrong, as any GM will be happy to tell you. Your comment about franchise mode was of course nonsensical. But you did make a good point about how a GM will get fired if he loses too many games. Nix is still in his honeymoon period, and can afford to lose some games. But I agree that if he goes 1-15 in year 2 or 3 of the rebuilding program, his job would be in serious jeopardy.

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.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm sure San Diego is happy they lost enough games to snag Ryan Leaf instead of getting stuck with some loser like Charles Woodson or Kyle Turley or Tra Thomas or Fred Taylor or Keith Brooking...imagine if they had a winning season, they might have even had to settle for Randy Moss.

Your example proves exactly the opposite point. Had the Chargers picked first overall instead of second, they could have had Peyton Manning.

[BillsfaninFl]

Wanting what's best for the team in the long-run (as I do) does not make me less of a fan than someone who wants what's best for the team over the short-term, while completely ignoring the long-run (as you do). You are basing your positions on emotion (the pain of watching the Bills lose on Sundays), instead of thinking in terms of a logical, concrete plan to get the Bills the elite players absolutely necessary for long-term success.

 

If you feel Nix is a good GM, you should want him to have picks as good as possible in order to gather talent quickly. That means losing games. But since you feel otherwise; you should also want the Bills to lose a lot of games; in order to get Nix fired as quickly as possible. In neither case would it help the team to pile up a bunch of meaningless wins.

 

It just doesn't work that way. Some teams (Detroit, etc.) have been at or near the top of the draft order several times during the last 10 or 15 years and are nowhere nearer to being an elite team at present. Unfortunately, the Bills fall into that category, as well. Their list of top draft choices for the last decade is a Greek Tragedy. So, unless the Bills ownership changes to someone who understands that to build an elite team you must start with elite staff members that are good at acquiring players who will excell in the NFL, your strategy is folly.

 

We often say that members of this discussion group are not experts. But each year, it seems like the majority of our members recognize first round players who will be better players than who the Bills actually pick. It's hard to blame the coaches who come and go every few years, since the drafting doesn't seem to improve after they are gone. Therefore...

[Orton's Arm]

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.

I did not make my case on the basis of guarantees of anything. The first pick of the first round is not a guaranteed success, any more than the last pick of the seventh round is guaranteed to be a failure. But on average, players tend to do better the earlier they are picked.

 

From the perspective of a player, I agree he has to adopt an adamant attitude about winning. Once you lose that, it's hard to get that back. You could probably say the same thing about the coaching staff. But the general manager needs to be less . . . intense about the short-term.

 

To use a military analogy, players are like soldiers trained to hold their ground no matter what the cost. Above all, they are taught to never run away, never show cowardice, never to avoid combat. Soldiers need to have that kind of intense desire in them, because the desire to run away to safety is so strong.

 

But a general needs to take a more bird's-eye view of the situation. There will be times when a good general will order a retreat to achieve some larger strategic goal. A soldier could say, "you fight to conquer land!" implying that a retreat is never a good idea. But that implication would be wrong.

 

This is a clear case where the Bills need to lose more games today in order to win more games tomorrow. It's a case of a general ordering a retreat, even though the soldiers in question have been indoctrinated to never give an inch of ground to the enemy. Obviously, the GM can't tell his coaches and players to deliberately start losing games. But he can choose personnel in a way that would avoid too many quick-fix, aging veteran players--the kind of players who help you win over the short-run without doing much to help in the long-term.

[Herd of Bills]

I'm sorry but I really can't wait 4 more years for a "future HOF player" to show and lead the Bills to the promised land. I would like to believe that we stand a better chance before then.

[ofiba]

Pretty solid idea, but if he's anything like his uncle, he'd play in the UFL for a few years before joining the Bills.

[benderbender]

Pretty solid idea, but if he's anything like his uncle, he'd play in the UFL for a few years before joining the Bills.

Which would be good practice considering we're not good enough to beat a UFL team

[1B4IDie]

I did not make my case on the basis of guarantees of anything. The first pick of the first round is not a guaranteed success, any more than the last pick of the seventh round is guaranteed to be a failure. But on average, players tend to do better the earlier they are picked.

 

From the perspective of a player, I agree he has to adopt an adamant attitude about winning. Once you lose that, it's hard to get that back. You could probably say the same thing about the coaching staff. But the general manager needs to be less . . . intense about the short-term.

 

To use a military analogy, players are like soldiers trained to hold their ground no matter what the cost. Above all, they are taught to never run away, never show cowardice, never to avoid combat. Soldiers need to have that kind of intense desire in them, because the desire to run away to safety is so strong.

 

But a general needs to take a more bird's-eye view of the situation. There will be times when a good general will order a retreat to achieve some larger strategic goal. A soldier could say, "you fight to conquer land!" implying that a retreat is never a good idea. But that implication would be wrong.

 

This is a clear case where the Bills need to lose more games today in order to win more games tomorrow. It's a case of a general ordering a retreat, even though the soldiers in question have been indoctrinated to never give an inch of ground to the enemy. Obviously, the GM can't tell his coaches and players to deliberately start losing games. But he can choose personnel in a way that would avoid too many quick-fix, aging veteran players--the kind of players who help you win over the short-run without doing much to help in the long-term.

 

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

on average, players tend to do better the earlier they are picked

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.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Levitre + Wang = Wood

[Orton's Arm]

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.

I'll begin by addressing your bolded text. In another post, I looked at the drafting record of Bill Polian. During his time with the Bills, Panthers, and Colts, he's had four picks in the top-5 overall. He used those picks on Bruce Smith (first overall), Kerry Collins (5th overall), Peyton Manning (1st overall), and Edgerrin James (4th overall). He had nine first round picks in the 21 - 32 range. Those were used on Henry Jones, John Fina, Tyrone Poole, Rob Morris, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Marlin Jackson, Joseph Addai, and Anthony Gonzalez. I'd argue that the four players in the first group are, collectively, worth significantly more than the nine players in the second. Polian got a lot more value out of his picks early in the first round than he did out of his later picks.

 

Your point about confidence is well-taken. But let's say you have some rookie player who hasn't yet proven anything in the NFL. Sure, that player will be worried about whether the team wins or loses. But he's also going to be worried about whether he's good enough to contribute and hold his own in the NFL. Once he goes out there and starts making plays, that's going to give him the confidence that, yes, he belongs. He won't necessarily feel a ton of confidence in the team as a whole with its 0-8 record, but at least he'll start to feel more confidence in himself.

 

As for players feeling confidence in the team as a whole--that's something that can come gradually. Obviously, the Colts probably didn't have much confidence in the team as a whole back in 1997; which is why the Colts were able to draft first overall in the '98 draft. Once Manning arrived, his presence and actions significantly contributed to an overall increase in team confidence. By the same token, the increase in confidence the Bills experienced in the mid-to-late '80s had a lot to do with the presence of guys like Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, and others on the roster.

[PromoTheRobot]

Just play Luck behind our O-line. We'll still be 0-16 when Chad Kelly enters the draft.

 

PTR

[1B4IDie]

I'll begin by addressing your bolded text. In another post, I looked at the drafting record of Bill Polian. During his time with the Bills, Panthers, and Colts, he's had four picks in the top-5 overall. He used those picks on Bruce Smith (first overall), Kerry Collins (5th overall), Peyton Manning (1st overall), and Edgerrin James (4th overall). He had nine first round picks in the 21 - 32 range. Those were used on Henry Jones, John Fina, Tyrone Poole, Rob Morris, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Marlin Jackson, Joseph Addai, and Anthony Gonzalez. I'd argue that the four players in the first group are, collectively, worth significantly more than the nine players in the second. Polian got a lot more value out of his picks early in the first round than he did out of his later picks.

 

Your point about confidence is well-taken. But let's say you have some rookie player who hasn't yet proven anything in the NFL. Sure, that player will be worried about whether the team wins or loses. But he's also going to be worried about whether he's good enough to contribute and hold his own in the NFL. Once he goes out there and starts making plays, that's going to give him the confidence that, yes, he belongs. He won't necessarily feel a ton of confidence in the team as a whole with its 0-8 record, but at least he'll start to feel more confidence in himself.

 

As for players feeling confidence in the team as a whole--that's something that can come gradually. Obviously, the Colts probably didn't have much confidence in the team as a whole back in 1997; which is why the Colts were able to draft first overall in the '98 draft. Once Manning arrived, his presence and actions significantly contributed to an overall increase in team confidence. By the same token, the increase in confidence the Bills experienced in the mid-to-late '80s had a lot to do with the presence of guys like Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, and others on the roster.

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.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Levitre + Wang = Wood

[Bflojohn]

Personally, I am torn on this point! I have watched the Bills all eight games and have NOT rooted against them, however, knowing the ramifications of losing these games has me quite calm when they (games) actually are over. In the Bills history, we've had the #1 pick a few times and O.J. Simpson and Bruce Smith were golden. However, Walt Patulski was a major disappointment and eventually got traded to the St. Louis Cardinals! Ironically, in my mind, the #1 priority should be defense in the 2011 draft, so a large part of me wants Da'Quan Bowers, DE, Clemson or Marcel Darius, DT/DE, Alabama with the best OLB left at #33!! I am all for a dominant defense that looks strickingly like the Ravens or Steelers units. That, to me, is how the Buffalo Bills should be built, going forward.

[JohninMinn.]

:worthy:

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.