Roll Call - Who would have preferred to lose?

[ajzepp]

I think this team is already in the process of turning it around. It started with ditching Dick and took a big step forward with the release of Trent. They are now learning to play hard and win. Granted they have beaten two bad teams, but you have to start somewhere. Winning will pay off bigger dividends than any one particular player in the draft. While there may be one terrific player they miss out on, there is going to be more than one terrific player in the draft, particularly early in the first round.

 

They almost certainly aren't going to win the SB next year in any event. But they can be a solid competitive team IF they learn to win. And if the FO can figure out who to keep and who needs to go. That determination is best made when the team plays to win, and when it wins.

 

Totally agree, Dean-o.

[Orton's Arm]

You actually resorted to "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

As usual, you are in over your head here.

You very obviously don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. (Not that that should stop you from voicing an opinion.)

 

I've been very underwhelmed with the intelligence of Tom's posts lately. Anything statistics-related he's written has been an absolutely joke, and that's what he supposedly does for a living. Football is his hobby, so his level of intellectual rigor is even less.

 

He made a true statement (our seventh round pick, Steve Johnson, is doing well) in order to make an idiotic implication (that draft position does not matter). If his point was correct, a standard-issue GM would be willing to trade the first overall pick, straight-up, for a seventh rounder. You and I both know that's not the case. So stop defending blatant stupidity just because Tom is your friend, and actually look at the relative merits of the points being made before chiming in with your own opinion. Thank you.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Edwards' Arm

[thebug]

No.

 

They're doing that this year.

 

 

It'll be ' heaven ' in 2011!!!

GO BILLSSS!!!!

Reverse the Curse!!!!!

 

 

OK, I'm going to stick with you for one more year, but you had better be right this time.

[Andrew in CA]

I think this team is already in the process of turning it around. It started with ditching Dick and took a big step forward with the release of Trent. They are now learning to play hard and win. Granted they have beaten two bad teams, but you have to start somewhere. Winning will pay off bigger dividends than any one particular player in the draft. While there may be one terrific player they miss out on, there is going to be more than one terrific player in the draft, particularly early in the first round.

 

They almost certainly aren't going to win the SB next year in any event. But they can be a solid competitive team IF they learn to win. And if the FO can figure out who to keep and who needs to go. That determination is best made when the team plays to win, and when it wins.

I'd agree with you except that I've probably said that to myself 5 out of the last 10 years. Enough spinning our wheels. We aren't turning **** around with the personnel we have. I just don't believe in the "learning how to win" bull **** anymore. I hope I'm wrong this time, but this past decade leads me to believe I'm not.

[The Senator]

OK, I'm going to stick with you for one more year, but you had better be right this time.

 

That's a deal!

 

(19 and 0 baby!!!)

[1B4IDie]

I'd agree with you except that I've probably said that to myself 5 out of the last 10 years. Enough spinning our wheels. We aren't turning **** around with the personnel we have. I just don't believe in the "learning how to win" bull **** anymore. I hope I'm wrong this time, but this past decade leads me to believe I'm not.

You're right to hope you're wrong, probably because you are wrong.

Dick didn't know how to win, he knew how to "not lose" which is different than winning.

Teams learn what it takes to win. They're learning. The late 80s Bills learned how to win and develop a winning attitude that led to the early 90s Bills.

[Andrew in CA]

You're right to hope you're wrong, probably because you are wrong.

Dick didn't know how to win, he knew how to "not lose" which is different than winning.

Teams learn what it takes to win. They're learning. The late 80s Bills learned how to win and develop a winning attitude that led to the early 90s Bills.

I'm wrong? That's a fact? I wish I still had your optimism, but I don't know how you can see this team as any different than the last 10 or so teams we've had. They're still so far away from really contending.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Andrew in LA

[The Dean]

You very obviously don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. (Not that that should stop you from voicing an opinion.)

 

I've been very underwhelmed with the intelligence of Tom's posts lately. Anything statistics-related he's written has been an absolutely joke, and that's what he supposedly does for a living. Football is his hobby, so his level of intellectual rigor is even less.

 

He made a true statement (our seventh round pick, Steve Johnson, is doing well) in order to make an idiotic implication (that draft position does not matter). If his point was correct, a standard-issue GM would be willing to trade the first overall pick, straight-up, for a seventh rounder. You and I both know that's not the case. So stop defending blatant stupidity just because Tom is your friend, and actually look at the relative merits of the points being made before chiming in with your own opinion. Thank you.

 

 

#1. Your initial response before you edited this post was far more insightful than the response above. Basically, you repeated "I know you are but what am I?" another time.

 

#2. Tom isn't my friend. We have never met. We spar on occasion. I don't have to defend Tom. He's a big boy and does a fine job defending himself. While I don't think IQ is a particularly good measure of intelligence, I'd guess he has a good 50 IQ points or more on you.

 

#3. While I am not a statistician by any means, I have 20+ years in research and I think I do a fine job of analyzing data. Judging by the posts I have read, where you discuss data and stats, I think you should demand your money back from whoever taught you. Of course, it probably isn't their fault. Some people simply have no feel for analysis.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

I think this team is already in the process of turning it around. It started with ditching Dick and took a big step forward with the release of Trent. They are now learning to play hard and win. Granted they have beaten two bad teams, but you have to start somewhere. Winning will pay off bigger dividends than any one particular player in the draft. While there may be one terrific player they miss out on, there is going to be more than one terrific player in the draft, particularly early in the first round.

 

They almost certainly aren't going to win the SB next year in any event. But they can be a solid competitive team IF they learn to win. And if the FO can figure out who to keep and who needs to go. That determination is best made when the team plays to win, and when it wins.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Of course "turning it around" is a very subjective term and leaves plenty of room for interpretation. I just know that we are 2-8 and while we've played at a very high level offensively, our defense is far from making us competitive in regards to winning record, playoff team, etc.

 

There may also be an element of overachieving with this team with how competitive they have been. I fully acknowledge that Chan has us moving forward, no question. I guess I'm just not at the place where I believe Fitz is the answer, so in saying that, the focus of needing a franchise QB in what appears to be a real opportunity this year is still at the forefront of my mind.

 

They're 2 OT field goals and a week 1 Start by Fitzy away from 5-5.

You add some pass rush and lock down the right side of the line and that almost 5-5 could be 7-3 with those additions.

Playing out these next 6 games tough is going to be key to see if they can turn it around.

 

I appreciate your optimism. But we are 2-8 not a few plays here and there from 7-3. You say we're 2 OT field goals away from 5-5, but your forgetting we are with the exception of Kyle an entire defensive line away, 2 OLB, 1 MLB, a safety, and two corners from playing winning football. Did you watch the first half of today's game? I enjoyed the comeback, but it was just that, a comeback from a very disturbing first half against a team that is just as bad as we are defensively. Enjoy the win, but I wouldn't build my foundation for the future on it.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

I enjoyed the game but still would have preferred a loss. The win will feel good for 7 days. Quarterback of the future would help the team for a decade. Flame away.

 

Yea, and 0-16 would not give us a "quarterback of the future".

 

Look, its really simple. I was among the biggest critics of Fitzpatrick on this board. But you cannot deny his effectiveness right now. At this point, it would be absolutely ludicrous to think that we would draft a QB who could consistently outperform Fitzpatrick season after season. In all fairness, this could be an anomaly season for Fitz - but I believe it more likely that he is coming into his own. But to expect a single draft pick to have a meaningful percentage of the production Fitz is posting on a consistent basis season after season is pretty absurd. When you draft a QB you are shooting in the dark, hoping to hit the target. It doesn't happen frequently enough that a team should want to give up on the first QB in a decade to post actual impressive numbers just for the sake of drafting a "franchise QB", or more likely, an infamous bust that will haunt the organization for years to come.

 

We all wanted a QB. We have one. Period. Let's draft for a position we need.

Edited November 22, 2010 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

[Virgil]

The best predictor of winning next year is winning this year. don't believe me? Compare the records of teams in year A and compare them to year B. Does winning in year A correlate better with wining in year B, or does losing enough to get the #1 or #2 draft pick correlate better with winning in year B? What about year C?

 

If you don't think the Bills are smart enough to find an impact player at #2, #4, #9, #10, etc, what makes you think they will make the right decision at #1. The "lose to get a better draft pick" crowd is made up (I believe) of people who have essentially given up. People with no hope. People who lack vision.

 

Regardless of what I want for the team, I still got excited watching the last two games and was pissed off during the previous three. However, I really wanted the Bills to get the first pick, not because I've given up, but because I think that if Luck declares, we would have had a player on our team for atleast 10 years to come. I think Luck has the brains and arm of Manning, and the legs and toughness of Roethlesberger.

 

So yeah, I love the team, but i'm thinking big picture. The sense of pride I'd feel even going 8-8 this year wouldn't compare to the decade of quality qb play with Luck behind center.

[Orton's Arm]

#1. Your initial response before you edited this post was far more insightful than the response above. Basically, you repeated "I know you are but what am I?" another time.

My initial response was based on irritation that you'd defended Tom (a standard-issue troll and bully with nothing of value to say) while you'd gratuitously attacked me in the process. Upon further reflection, I realized that just because you'd acted like a bonehead in that instance, does not necessarily justify me in calling you a bonehead in general.

 

#2. Tom isn't my friend. We have never met. We spar on occasion. I don't have to defend Tom. He's a big boy and does a fine job defending himself. While I don't think IQ is a particularly good measure of intelligence' date=' I'd guess he has a good 50 IQ points or more on you.[/quote']

Nothing I've seen from Tom suggests particularly high intelligence. He has a big ego and does a fine job of mudslinging and acting like a jerk. But when it comes to more intellectually challenging subjects, he's generally at a loss.

 

To give a specific example, suppose you had two data series: (X1, X2, X3 . . . Xn) and (Y1, Y2, Y3, . . . Yn). Suppose that there was a correlation between the points of the two series, with X1 correlated to Y1, X2 to Y2, and so on. Assume further that the correlation coefficient is greater than zero and less than one. To make life simpler, suppose the two data series are normally distributed, have the same average, and the same standard deviation. If someone were to hand you the value of X1 (or X2, or Xn), and were to ask you to give your best possible guess for the value of Y1 (or Y2, or Yn), your best guess should consist of (correlation coefficient * X1) + ( (1-correlation coefficient) * the average of the Y series). That should be fairly obvious to most people familiar with statistics.

 

What the above means in practice is that if someone hands you an extreme value for X1, the predicted value for Y1 will be closer to the mean of the Y distribution than the X1 value had been to the mean of the X distribution. That phenomenon is also called the regression effect, or regression toward the mean.

 

For example, suppose you take 1000 randomly selected people who each scored a 140 on an I.Q. test. If you were to have each of them retake the test, the average score of the group as a whole would be less than 140. The correlation between X1 (any given person's score the first time around) and Y1 (that same person's score the second time around) is high, but is not quite 1. Therefore, the expected value of Y1 is a function not just of X1, but also of the mean of the population from which the 1000 subjects had been randomly selected.

 

I mention this phenomenon because I spent many, many pages trying to convince Tom that it existed. I tried explaining it in multiple different ways, and every time he just heaped ridicule on my explanation. Then I found a link to this article, which Tom ridiculed because it came from Hyperstat. Then I found other links to articles which said the same thing. Tom could not ridicule those other articles, because they came from places like Tufts and Stanford. So instead he claimed they said different things than the Hyperstat article, and hoped no one noticed. He also decided that since he could no longer dispute the existence of the above-described phenomenon itself, he would find some other, more minor thing to which to object. He then claimed that the regression effect could only occur in cases of autocorrelation. That claim clearly demonstrated that even after many pages of discussion and several articles, all of which said the same thing, he still did not understand the basic phenomenon. The relationship between the two above-described data sets exists regardless of whether an autocorrelation situation exists.

 

For example, suppose that X1 represents how long it took you to run 1/4 a mile the first time you were tested, and Y1 represents your time on the quarter mile the second time around. X2 would represent some other guy's time on the quarter mile, and so on. That's an autocorrelation, and the regression effect applies.

 

But now suppose that X1 represents the time it took you to run a quarter mile, and Y1 represents the time it took your best friend to run the quarter mile. X2 represents the time it took someone else (chosen at random) to run the quarter mile, and Y2 represents the time it took that other person's best friend to run the quarter mile. Let's suppose--for the sake of argument--that there's a correlation between X1 and Y1, X2 and Y2, etc. (The reason for this is that people tend to hang out with others like themselves. A football player's best friend could easily be a football player of similar age; an overweight 50 year old woman might have another woman just like that as her best friend, and so on. Things like that would probably happen often enough to make the correlation coefficient between the two data sets greater than zero.) This is a situation where X1 is correlated with Y1, X2 with Y2, and so on. The relationship between the two series is clearly not one of autocorrelation. And yet the regression effect still applies. Suppose that the correlation coefficient between the two series was 0.2. If someone told you the value of X4, and asked you to predict Y4, your best possible prediction of Y4 would be 0.2 * X4 + 0.8 * (the average of the Y series). (This assumes, of course, that the X and Y series have the same average. If they had different averages, it would be necessary to make adjustments.)

 

Assuming you're as good with statistics as you say you are, you either knew all the above already, or were smart enough to figure it out after having been pointed in the right direction. My point here is that Tom was not smart enough to figure any of that out, despite having had it explained to him multiple times, and despite his having a background in statistics. Just because Tom is arrogant about his intelligence, and looks down on the opinions of others, does not mean he has the brains to back it up. When faced with something intellectually challenging, he failed to the point of embarrassment.

[Virgil]

How did we get here...

[nucci]

Regardless of what I want for the team, I still got excited watching the last two games and was pissed off during the previous three. However, I really wanted the Bills to get the first pick, not because I've given up, but because I think that if Luck declares, we would have had a player on our team for atleast 10 years to come. I think Luck has the brains and arm of Manning, and the legs and toughness of Roethlesberger.

 

So yeah, I love the team, but i'm thinking big picture. The sense of pride I'd feel even going 8-8 this year wouldn't compare to the decade of quality qb play with Luck behind center.

Yes, but if we go 8-8 wouldn't that show that we don't need as many players as we think? I don't think they will but that means we will have won 8 in a row and beaten Pit, NYJ, NE...etc.

[Bills(70)]

You're right to hope you're wrong, probably because you are wrong.

Dick didn't know how to win, he knew how to "not lose" which is different than winning.

Teams learn what it takes to win. They're learning. The late 80s Bills learned how to win and develop a winning attitude that led to the early 90s Bills.

Well of course the Bills of the late 80's learned how to win. Two 2-14 and one 4-12 seasons prior to the 90's helped bring in the all star talent to learn how to win. It wasn't some magical moment that transpired. It took hitting rock bottom to get that good.

This Bills team is hitting rock bottom.

[The Senator]

Well of course the Bills of the late 80's learned how to win. Two 2-14 and one 4-12 seasons prior to the 90's helped bring in the all star talent to learn how to win. It wasn't some magical moment that transpired. It took hitting rock bottom to get that good.

This Bills team is hitting rock bottom.

The nice thing about hitting 'rock bottom' is that things bounce off of it hard and fast - like the Bills just did.

Edited November 22, 2010 by The Senator

[Bills(70)]

The nice thing about hitting 'rock bottom' is that things bounce off of it hard and fast - like the Bills just did.

I hope they do The Senator.

I am hoping for a 9-7 record or better in 2 seasons. Thats actually pretty quick considering the condition the team is in.

I will say this team has a few things going for it that the late 80's team did not.

 

1. The offensve line

This team has already started to put the talent in place on the O line.

This affords the team the ability to address other positions come draft day, impact positions.

2. Wide Receivers

With the emergence of Johnson this teams WR corp is a decent group.

3. Tight End

Still waiting for the Pete Metzellars type of Tight End. The draft can address this.

4. Running Back

Spiller is ok, Jackson is decent as well. Are they the answer, I hope Spiller is, since it was a 9th overall pick.

5. Quarterback

Is Fitz the one? He can fill the role for the next couple of seasons. This gives us a longer time frame to eveluate that question.

6. The Defense

DE and LB need to be addressed immediately in my opinion. These next 2 drafts 1st and 2nd rounders should address this. We need to get better on defense and by a large margin yet.

 

The late 80's teams had many more holes to fill. So we really aren't that far off.

This does depend on how the team drafts as well. I have confidence in Buddy Nix, he is a football guy.

 

I think the Bills will really contend after next season. And I'm patient enough to wait for it.

[The Senator]

I hope they do The Senator.

I am hoping for a 9-7 record or better in 2 seasons. Thats actually pretty quick considering the condition the team is in.

I will say this team has a few things going for it that the late 80's team did not.

 

1. The offensve line

This team has already started to put the talent in place on the O line.

This affords the team the ability to address other positions come draft day, impact positions.

2. Wide Receivers

With the emergence of Johnson this teams WR corp is a decent group.

3. Tight End

Still waiting for the Pete Metzellars type of Tight End. The draft can address this.

4. Running Back

Spiller is ok, Jackson is decent as well. Are they the answer, I hope Spiller is, since it was a 9th overall pick.

5. Quarterback

Is Fitz the one? He can fill the role for the next couple of seasons. This gives us a longer time frame to eveluate that question.

6. The Defense

DE and LB need to be addressed immediately in my opinion. These next 2 drafts 1st and 2nd rounders should address this. We need to get better on defense and by a large margin yet.

 

The late 80's teams had many more holes to fill. So we really aren't that far off.

This does depend on how the team drafts as well. I have confidence in Buddy Nix, he is a football guy.

 

I think the Bills will really contend after next season. And I'm patient enough to wait for it.

Good list - hope you don't mind that I added my 2-cents on each of your points...

 

✔ 1. The offensive line - This team has already started to put the talent in place on the O line. This affords the team the ability to address other positions come draft day, impact positions. (Getting someone like Gabe Carimi on draft day could be the final piece of the OL puzzle.)

 

✔ 2. Wide Receivers - With the emergence of Johnson this teams WR corp is a decent group. (Nothing to add there.)

 

3. Tight End - Still waiting for the Pete Metzellars type of Tight End. The draft can address this. (Wish we'd seen more from Shawn Nelson - and maybe we will - I'd hate to have to wait until 2016 when Glen Gronkowski comes out of Kansas State!)

 

✔ 4. Running Back - Spiller is ok, Jackson is decent as well. Are they the answer, I hope Spiller is, since it was a 9th overall pick. (I agree - we're good at RB - though Stanford's 2-way star FB/ILB/ST Owen Marecic would be a nice addition.)

 

✔ 5. Quarterback - Is Fitz the one? He can fill the role for the next couple of seasons. This gives us a longer time frame to evaluate that question. (Fitz is a pleasant surprise, and still a young QB who will likely get even better. Then there's the completely unknown ' Brohm-factor '. And, there's always gonna be another stud QB who's even better than the last one everyone wanted to draft - Oregon's Darron Thomas comes to mind, but there are others. If Fitz keeps 'lighting it up', we shouldn't even have to worry about QB until around 2015/2016, when Jim Kelly's nephew, Chad Kelly, comes out!)

 

6. The Defense - DE and LB need to be addressed immediately in my opinion. These next 2 drafts 1st and 2nd rounders should address this. We need to get better on defense and by a large margin yet. (We definitely need better pass ruch and run containment - maybe Dontay Moch in round 2, Greg Romeus - high risk gamble with huge upside if he comes back from ACL injury - in round 6 , Marecic and add'l LB help in mid-rounds, free agency, and more game experience for the current squad will be enough.)

 

 

So the unchecked 2 areas are the ones where I see really glaring needs: TE (and Nelson may still emerge as a contributor) and, obviously, defense.

 

I think Buddy and Chan can fix that in one off-season. I really do.

 

Just win, baby!!!

[LabattBlue]

Winning a couple of games over the last 6 weeks is not going to make or break this team for the future. It's not like they are going to go 6-0 and make the playoffs, so who cares if they go 0-6, 1-5 or 2-4.

 

If it means getting a chance at Luck, here's to losing out the rest of the way, and Carolina and the rest of the bottom feeders finding a way to win another game or two.

[bananathumb]

Wins like these two only mean you lower your draft pick. Detroit without Stafford, Cinci without 3/4 of their secondary in the second half.

 

Now if they beat Pittsburgh or some other team at full strength, THAT would be meaningful and suggest that maybe they might be a good team.