Roll Call - Who would have preferred to lose?

[nucci]

I'm just amazed that there people out there that want their team to lose. Just incredible! Can't believe this is even a topic to discuss. There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. Did you not enjoy watching the game and winning? Do you actually root for them to lose? I really don't get it. Winning is also part of the development of this team.

[1B4IDie]

I'm just amazed that there people out there that want their team to lose. Just incredible! Can't believe this is even a topic to discuss. There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. Did you not enjoy watching the game and winning? Do you actually root for them to lose? I really don't get it. Winning is also part of the development of this team.

They actually haven't said much to convince anyone otherwise, just a bunch of knuckleheads.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Why So Serious?

[robertpaul49]

I am really torn on this issue.

 

I don't think any Bills fan wants the team to lose, but I can definitely understand the frustration since the team has been stuck in mediocrity. How many times have Bills fans watch the team seem to improve at the end of the year to see two things happen:

1) The Bills revert back to form the next year, ala JP Losman & Trent Edwards.

2) Just miss on drafting someone like Patrick Willis

 

After years of experience, I will take any Bills win they get. The one year I was really happy they let were rebuilding and they had a chance to draft a player who would solidify the left tackle position for years to come. They had a chance to draft a left tackle who played on the best offensive line in college football, who hadn't given up a sack in college or high school. And the Bills selected Mike Williams instead. On another occasion, the Bills were struggling because they had released two stud defensive linemen, and OK, it's alright that they lost some games because they now have a chance to draft a real stud, who will make everyone forget about Pat Williams & Sam Adams. And the Bills selected Donte Whitner.

 

I'll take what I can get because if the Bills had the worst record Luck wouldn't be avaible. Anybody that I would like them to draft will not be available when they draft or they will completely wiff on the player.

 

I just hope that the Bills have finally hired competent management in Nix, which is much more important than any single drafted player.

[1B4IDie]

I am really torn on this issue.

 

I don't think any Bills fan wants the team to lose, but I can definitely understand the frustration since the team has been stuck in mediocrity. How many times have Bills fans watch the team seem to improve at the end of the year to see two things happen:

1) The Bills revert back to form the next year, ala JP Losman & Trent Edwards.

2) Just miss on drafting someone like Patrick Willis

 

After years of experience, I will take any Bills win they get. The one year I was really happy they let were rebuilding and they had a chance to draft a player who would solidify the left tackle position for years to come. They had a chance to draft a left tackle who played on the best offensive line in college football, who hadn't given up a sack in college or high school. And the Bills selected Mike Williams instead. On another occasion, the Bills were struggling because they had released two stud defensive linemen, and OK, it's alright that they lost some games because they now have a chance to draft a real stud, who will make everyone forget about Pat Williams & Sam Adams. And the Bills selected Donte Whitner.

 

I'll take what I can get because if the Bills had the worst record Luck wouldn't be avaible. Anybody that I would like them to draft will not be available when they draft or they will completely wiff on the player.

 

I just hope that the Bills have finally hired competent management in Nix, which is much more important than any single drafted player.

Don't be torn, The Year Patrick Willis was taken Lawrence Timmons was taken a few picks after the Bills who is arguably just as good or better than the hype that Patrick Willis received.

Don't get me wrong Patrick Willis is a great linebacker but Timmons is a stud too. I would have loved Willis over Lynch but look at the Maybin pick. No one could ever explain to me why you would pass on Orakpo for Maybin. It was just an irresponsible pick.

Drafting Well trumps drafting early.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Why So Serious?

[T master]

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME !!!Never want the Bills to lose & think with this whole QB thing it may be to our advantage . I would hate to take the #1 overall pick at QB & have him be a bust like Jemarcus Russel , it may be a bit easier to swallow if he was 5th or 6th over all or 11th like our boy Maybin .

[Orton's Arm]

You ignore posts like Koufax that reasonably proves your notion is incorrect then ramble about choosing cars.

 

My point about the cars was this: a man who drives an expensive car sends a signal that he has a lot of money. But in order to send that signal, he has to give up a portion of the money he otherwise would have had. Likewise, a team that wins a lot of games sends a signal that it has a lot of talent. But to send that signal, it must give up a portion of the draft day talent it otherwise would have received. Since you want me to address Koufax's post, I'll do so here.

 

Great data. Thanks.

 

So I think we can all agree we won't intentionally trade 1st round picks for 2nd or any other full round trade downs, because top players are more likely to come from the higher rounds.

 

Back to the actual discussion, the issue is whether losing and drafting higher would 1) Help us get a franchise QB or 2) Help us be better overall in the next few years.

 

I think our move in the last two weeks from the #1 pick to #4-6 was inevitable (look at the road OT losses against two first place teams), and we weren't going to go 0-16 which is what it likely would have taken to beat the soon-to-be 1-15 Panthers. It felt like it at 0-8, but when the dust settles we aren't going to be looking at just one half of football (2nd vs Bengals) where if we did a little worse we would have gotten a savior.

 

Also, with due respect to Luck, the evidence that has been put forth here shows generally picking #4-6 isn't such a difference from picking #1. We all love the Peyton story, but the Colts were considering Leaf as well, and there are many other #1 busts who were considered locks six months before the draft happens.

 

Also, drafting well is much better than drafting high. There just isn't any way around this. Look at what the Steelers and Patriots have done over the last decade without cracking the top 10, and compare that to what the Lions and Raiders have done. Those are just examples in the extreme, but it is clear that it does not take top picks to build an amazing roster (even their superstar QBs were not picked in the top 10).

 

Now, in every isolated case I would rather have a higher pick than a lower pick, but there is nothing isolated about it. We have guys on this team now who are building what the Bills will be in the next few years, guys who will be part of our 2013 team whether it is in last place or the Super Bowl. And to the development of those guys and the coach and more, I think that turning 0-8 into 4-12 will be more valuable than riding it to an "It-Doesn't-Matter-Anyways" 1-15 (and likely the #2 pick at 1-15). Not more valuable because it is fun to win as a fan, but more valuable to the actual progress of our team into a champion.

 

Rooting for losing because you think it will make you better is not just pretty sad as a sports fan, I also think that realistically it is not a very sound objective.

 

But if Joe_the_6_pack has some extra time to do statistical research, can you get us a list of the 0,1,2 win teams that appeared in a super bowl or conference title game in the following five years? Even Manning's Colts didn't get to a conference championship until the sixth year. Or are you looking towards the 2016 season and beyond? Our best path to the playoffs is finding a way to be a 4-12 or even 5-11 team this year, and rolling that momentum into next year and see what year #2 of a new system and coach can do, as players start understanding the system and start learning how to win.

 

Even in 2001 I don't regret beating the Panthers to miss Peppers and fall to #4 for Mike Williams. What I regret is picking Mike Williams at #4 instead of Dwight Freeney, Albert Hayensworth, or Ed Reed.

 

And maybe Mallett or Locker will fall into our laps at #4-6 and five years from now be the steal of the draft people are talking about. Eli Manning #1, Rivers #4, Big Ben #11. Or maybe Fitz is our guy for now, we draft a QB in a later round or in 2012, and we pick up a defensive beast that changes the character of our front 7. A lot can happen after draft day, so I think we will be fine if Chan and Buddy make good decisions. But right now I just hope we find a way to win one Sunday at a time.

 

Go Bills!

The above post makes the following points:

 

1) Picking 4 - 6 isn't necessarily much different than picking 1st overall.

2) Drafting well is better than drafting high.

3) Many of the players of the future are already on the team. Winning games helps develop them.

4) Teams that pick very early in the draft generally don't turn themselves into serious playoff contenders very quickly. It was not until Manning's 6th season that the Colts went to the AFC Championship game.

5) If the Bills lose out on Luck (as they probably will), it's possible some other QB--such as Mallett or Locker--will turn out to be just as good.

 

The truth of point 1) depends on what year you're drafting and the players that are there when you pick. If it's a Peyton Manning year, the difference between 1st overall and 2nd - 5th overall is huge, and cannot be overstated. If it's a Long/Long/Ryan draft, then anywhere in the top-3 is a very good place to be: especially if Ryan falls to you at #3! If Luck declares for the upcoming draft, he will go first overall, and the dropoff between 1st and 2nd overall will be very substantial.

 

Point #2 is true. Matt Millen's top-5 pick will likely do significantly less well than Bill Polian's pick in the 20 - 32 range. However, Bill Polian's top-5 pick will likely do significantly better than his 20 - 32 pick would have.

 

There's some truth to point #3. But if you want to develop players, just getting them out on the field and having them play well is more important than your team's record. Let's say that the Bills end the season with a 2-14 record: significantly worse than last year's. Even with a record like that, this season will have been very, very useful to the development of a guy like Steve Johnson. Conversely, last season's wins probably didn't do much to help Steve Johnson's development or his self-confidence, because he was sitting on the bench, watching Terrell Owens play.

 

As for point #4, a team that finishes with a 1-15 record will generally not have much talent. It will usually take several years to acquire enough necessary talent to advance deep in the playoffs. Winning games does not increase the team's level of talent, and losing games does not decrease it.

 

Re. point #5: I have more confidence in Ponder than I do in Mallett or Locker. But that's beside the point. Luck is the real deal here: a guy who looks to be somewhere between a Matt Ryan and a Peyton Manning. No other player combines his level of upside with his lack of downside. (A quarterback's upside is located between his ears; and not in his arms or his legs. Joe Montana didn't have a strong arm, and he did okay.) Yes, it's possible some other QB in the upcoming draft will have as good a career as Luck. But the odds are against it, as indicated by the quarterbacks' respective draft positions; and by what those draft positions say about GMs' opinions of those quarterbacks' respective chances. The number of truly elite quarterbacks in the league is very limited. Luck has a better chance of joining the ranks of those elite QBs than does any other draft prospect.

 

If the Bills finish with a top-5 pick, they should seriously consider trading up to draft Luck. (Assuming he declares.) The better their pick, the smaller the price will be to trade up.

[The Senator]

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME !!!Never want the Bills to lose & think with this whole QB thing it may be to our advantage . I would hate to take the #1 overall pick at QB & have him be a bust like Jemarcus Russel , it may be a bit easier to swallow if he was 5th or 6th over all or 11th like our boy Maybin .

Therein lies the utter stupidity of the 'loser-mentality'

 

Can you imagine deliberately 'losing out' with the intent of positioning yourself to draft a perceived 'Once-In-A-Lifetime' prospect - then ending up with a Jamarcus Russell??? When you could have won a few more games and gotten Adrian Peterson???

[Rob's House]

I have more respect for band wagon jumpers than I do for people who cheer for their team to lose. If you were drinking at the bar and ran into a group of players who had the decency to talk to you, would you have the audacity to tell them that you're the (*^*&%^$^#wearing their uniform in the stands cheering for them to lose?

[Orton's Arm]

I have more respect for band wagon jumpers than I do for people who cheer for their team to lose. If you were drinking at the bar and ran into a group of players who had the decency to talk to you, would you have the audacity to tell them that you're the (*^*&%^$^#wearing their uniform in the stands cheering for them to lose?

A long-term strategy for building a winning football team should not be based on what you'd say to random players at a bar.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Edwards' Arm

[truth on hold]

Don't be torn, The Year Patrick Willis was taken Lawrence Timmons was taken a few picks after the Bills who is arguably just as good or better than the hype that Patrick Willis received.

Don't get me wrong Patrick Willis is a great linebacker but Timmons is a stud too. I would have loved Willis over Lynch but look at the Maybin pick. No one could ever explain to me why you would pass on Orakpo for Maybin. It was just an irresponsible pick.

Drafting Well trumps drafting early.

Willis is better than Timmons, and it has nothing to do with hype. You're just reaching again, trying to support this nonsensical theory that it doesn't matter where you draft. But the real critical piece of information is that we would have taken Willis if he were there but unfortunately he was taken 1 pick ahead of us. I remember that too and it really stung.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Joe_the_6_pack

[1B4IDie]

Willis is better than Timmons, and it has nothing to do with hype. You're just reaching again, trying to support this nonsensical theory that it doesn't matter where you draft. But the real critical piece of information is that we would have taken Willis if he were there but unfortunately he was taken 1 pick ahead of us. I remember that too and it really stung.

I said arguably just as good or better. You want to argue, great for you. Either way Timmons is a stud he is everywhere on the field; Sideline to sideline. You'll get to see that on Sunday.

 

You're missing the "theory."

 

The "Theory" is not "it doesn't matter where you draft."

 

The fact in the NFL is that there is not a significant amount of difference between picking #4 or picking #6 to justify loosing.

 

That is the point that you're missing.

[truth on hold]

I said arguably just as good or better. You want to argue, great for you. Either way Timmons is a stud he is everywhere on the field; Sideline to sideline. You'll get to see that on Sunday.

 

You're missing the "theory."

 

The "Theory" is not "it doesn't matter where you draft."

 

The fact in the NFL is that there is not a significant amount of difference between picking #4 or picking #6 to justify loosing.

 

That is the point that you're missing.

You're just a LOL machine. Like there was no difference in the example you cite where we took Marshawn Lynch at 12 because Willis was taken one spot ahead at 11? LOL ....

[Kelly the Dog]

At each point, in every season, when it becomes clear we are not winning the Super Bowl, we should intentionally lose every game thereafter so we get the best pick. Plus, it will instill a strong sense of confidence in all of our players because they will be TRYING to lose, and succeeding, and we all know that success breeds more success.

[Rob's House]

A long-term strategy for building a winning football team should not be based on what you'd say to random players at a bar.

That example was geared for the purpose of showing what a dildo of a fan one would have to be to cheer for losses, but if we're going that route, a long term strategy shouldn't be based on the whimsical notions of a bunch of mouth-breathing morons on a message board who decided there is one guy out there who will be make or break for the franchise, and he must be taken with the top pick.

[1B4IDie]

The truth of point 1) depends on what year you're drafting and the players that are there when you pick. If it's a Peyton Manning year, the difference between 1st overall and 2nd - 5th overall is huge, and cannot be overstated. If it's a Long/Long/Ryan draft, then anywhere in the top-3 is a very good place to be: especially if Ryan falls to you at #3! If Luck declares for the upcoming draft, he will go first overall, and the dropoff between 1st and 2nd overall will be very substantial.

 

There's some truth to point #3. But if you want to develop players, just getting them out on the field and having them play well is more important than your team's record. Let's say that the Bills end the season with a 2-14 record: significantly worse than last year's. Even with a record like that, this season will have been very, very useful to the development of a guy like Steve Johnson. Conversely, last season's wins probably didn't do much to help Steve Johnson's development or his self-confidence, because he was sitting on the bench, watching Terrell Owens play.

 

I'm glad that you have started to realize that a blanket policy of strategically losing to improve your draft position is not a sound strategy.

 

If there is a GM that believes that there is a once a generation player, like you believe Luck is then I can see how this strategy of losing can be discussed. It is a very risky strategy but you would have to be fairly certain that the player is worth the risk and that they will be entering the draft. This would not happen but once in ten or twenty years and certainly not a sound annual strategy once a team is eliminated from the playoffs.

 

 

There's some truth to point #3. But if you want to develop players, just getting them out on the field and having them play well is more important than your team's record. Let's say that the Bills end the season with a 2-14 record: significantly worse than last year's. Even with a record like that, this season will have been very, very useful to the development of a guy like Steve Johnson. Conversely, last season's wins probably didn't do much to help Steve Johnson's development or his self-confidence, because he was sitting on the bench, watching Terrell Owens play.

 

 

This is not meant as a personal attack but its clear you have never participated as a player or a coach in a team sport or you would never say this.

There is nothing worse than battling for 60 minutes and losing.

The point of suiting up is to win and when a team loses its like all the energy is sucked out of the team's life. Losing continuity makes players lose confidence in the coaching, ownership, system and themselves. You can't play in the NFL if you don't have confidence and confidence is gained through winning. You can't just wipe the slate clean in January and start over again in training camp, the stink and stain of losing is difficult to remove.