Maddog69 Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 So you have no problem watching this team go 0-16 this year? And if we do go 0-16, the team would need more help than just a QB. You missed the point. If going 0-16 helped the team in the long run, I can live with it. Winning a few games just for the sake of being happy for one Sunday afternoon doesn't help the team down the road.
Orton's Arm Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 Take a quick look at QBs drafted in the last 10 years and tell me which one(s) you think are worth an 0-16 season... link Luck has lost his head coach, his top 2 WRs, 3 starting offensive linemen, and FB Owen Marecic - he'll drop in value this season as Stanford falls in the PAC 12 standings. Not saying he won't be a great NFL QB some day, but only an idiot would say "Yeah, let's lose however many we need to lose - even if it means 0-16 - just to get Andy Luck!!!" GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! Your link supports a point I made earlier: that less than one franchise-caliber QB enters the league each year. Most franchise QBs currently in the league were chosen in the first round. And yet, during the ten year period between 1998 and 2007, only six franchise QBs were chosen in the first round. (Seven if you want to count Jay Cutler.) Because opportunities to get franchise QBs are so rare, and because Andrew Luck has "franchise QB" written all over him, the Andrew Luck pick is very precious. Going 1-15 in 1997 worked out pretty well for Colts fans, who can now enjoy their Super Bowl win and a decade of having their team in the playoff mix. People need to take the long-term view. They should also realize how hard it is to get a franchise QB, and how important having one is to building a Super Bowl-winning team. Give the Bills that, and a few key additions at other positions, and we'd be talking about a real team here. A team that could Do Something in the playoffs.
Rockinon Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 That is loser talk. We don't want no stinkin 8-8 season, and we sure as hell don't want no No.1 draft pick. I wish these threads would STOP! Fight the good fight. You are not alone.
Albany,n.y. Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) I'd rather go 4-12 and get the 5th pick than 3-13 and the 1st. Losing is for, well, losers. While most of the you don't lose posts make sense, winning one more game making your grand total 4 wins and losing out on a player who can win you an average of 12 games a season for the next decade is ridiculous. The inability to EVER delay gratification as exhibited by the fact you'd rather win 1 more meaningless game to get to 4 wins shows that you really don't grasp the difference a franchise QB means. I've posted this thought before but I'll repeat it: When a player tries to win that 4th game, it's the right thing to do, when a fan doesn't want the team to not win that 4th game if it's better for the franchise, that fan has reached a delusional status where he has blurred the line between a player and a fan. You're not playing, you're not winning and losing the games-the players are. At 3-12, it's the players duty to try to win the game, fans with a broader view do not have to root for that meaningless win. Some of us want to see the Lombardi trophy in Buffalo-if it means 1 less win gets us there. The shortsighted fans who are satisfied with mediocrity or worse as evidenced by your 4 win acceptance rather than a more desireable 3 win season, just don't get it. Nobody should want the team to lose in September, or even October, but when the team has 3 wins in December, it makes perfect sense for fans who understand the importance of a once in a generation player being available to their team to root for the team to lose rather than feel good the Monday following that 4th win & then have to suffer through years of mediocrity. No you're not a loser, you just don't understand the difference between a meaningful win and a meaningless win. Edited May 10, 2011 by Albany,n.y.
Ramius Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 In the words of a famous TBD mouth breather of days long gone: Winning destroys the franchise!
The Senator Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 While most of the you don't lose posts make sense, winning one more game making your grand total 4 wins and losing out on a player who can win you an average of 12 games a season for the next decade is ridiculous. The inability to EVER delay gratification as exhibited by the fact you'd rather win 1 more meaningless game to get to 4 wins shows that you really don't grasp the difference a franchise QB means. I've posted this thought before but I'll repeat it: When a player tries to win that 4th game, it's the right thing to do, when a fan doesn't want the team to not win that 4th game if it's better for the franchise, that fan has reached a delusional status where he has blurred the line between a player and a fan. You're not playing, you're not winning and losing the games-the players are. At 3-12, it's the players duty to try to win the game, fans with a broader view do not have to root for that meaningless win. Some of us want to see the Lombardi trophy in Buffalo-if it means 1 less win gets us there. The shortsighted fans who are satisfied with mediocrity or worse as evidenced by your 4 win acceptance rather than a more desireable 3 win season, just don't get it. Nobody should want the team to lose in September, or even October, but when the team has 3 wins in December, it makes perfect sense for fans who understand the importance of a once in a generation player being available to their team to root for the team to lose rather than feel good the Monday following that 4th win & then have to suffer through years of mediocrity. No you're not a loser, you just don't understand the difference between a meaningful win and a meaningless win. That's one loser's opinion. As someone who chooses not to walk around with a big "L" on my forehead, however, I'll proffer that two less "meaningless wins" in December might have landed the Bills one-year wonder, recidivist thug, arrogant a-hole, and future flop - Cam Newton - rather than model-citizen and future HOF defensive lineman Marcell Dareus. The are no 'meaningless wins' - except in the minds of losers. GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!!
nucci Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 You missed the point. If going 0-16 helped the team in the long run, I can live with it. Winning a few games just for the sake of being happy for one Sunday afternoon doesn't help the team down the road. I get the point but I don't see how 0-16 helps. There would be so many problems that need fixing that one or two drafts would not help. This team has been so bad for so long I want them to win now. They seem to be moving forward so 0-16 would be a huge step back. We could also go back to QBs that were picked in the top 5 that have busted that getting Luck may not work out. I would rather they try to win now.
tennesseeboy Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 If we are 3-16 we will be looking at a new coach and general manager. I would expect a minimum of nine wins this year. Sooner or later you have to show us the baby.
Albany,n.y. Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 That's one loser's opinion. As someone who chooses not to walk around with a big "L" on my forehead, however, I'll proffer that two less "meaningless wins" in December might have landed the Bills one-year wonder, recidivist thug, arrogant a-hole, and future flop - Cam Newton - rather than model-citizen and future HOF defensive lineman Marcell Dareus. The are no 'meaningless wins' - except in the minds of losers. GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! Marv Levy knew the difference between a meaningless win and a worthwhile win. When he was coach he would rest his players the final game after everything was clinched and didn't care if the team won or lost the final game. That's because he understood there was something greater at stake (not exposing his key players to injury before the playoffs) than a meaningless win. So, you must think Marv was a loser, since he, unlike you, could distinguish the difference between a meaningless win and the bigger picture.
tennesseeboy Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 A "meaningless" win is theoretically one where it will make no difference. I have to admit I can see resting players after you have made the playoffs and have home field advantage to some extent. Throwing games to "win" a last place finish is not something that a Marv Levy would have ever done. When you don't have a win no game is meaningless. You don't become a winning team by drafting last. You become a winning team by learning how to win games. And you do that on the field and off the field with good solid drafting, wise use of free agency, keeping your better players, and judicious trading.
Albany,n.y. Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 A "meaningless" win is theoretically one where it will make no difference. I have to admit I can see resting players after you have made the playoffs and have home field advantage to some extent. Throwing games to "win" a last place finish is not something that a Marv Levy would have ever done. When you don't have a win no game is meaningless. You don't become a winning team by drafting last. You become a winning team by learning how to win games. And you do that on the field and off the field with good solid drafting, wise use of free agency, keeping your better players, and judicious trading. You're blurring the difference between participants and fans. Participants are expected to play to win. The fans have the right to root for whatever they feel will benefit the team in the long run without the constraints the players and coaches have and without short sighted fans calling them losers. If Mrs Graham Harrell wants to call me a loser, so be it.
Rockinon Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 You're blurring the difference between participants and fans. Participants are expected to play to win. The fans have the right to root for whatever they feel will benefit the team in the long run without the constraints the players and coaches have and without short sighted fans calling them losers. If Mrs Graham Harrell wants to call me a loser, so be it. Losing so you can get a better player next year is what is truly short sighted. Winning is not about having the best QB next year. If you want to win you do it by building a consensus winning attitude from all players on the team. Even the ones that are not superstars can perform better with hard work and the mental determination to achieve a higher goal. This losing in hopes of maybe getting your guy in next year's draft is wrong and short sighted. What message are you sending to your existing team members if it is OK to lose now. Wrong message. No matter how you try to spin it. It's not right and it's a low character, underhanded, fowl way to run a team. Build your team the right way by playing to win every Sunday. Every single team in the NFL starts out the season with zero wins. Every single team has a chance to make the playoffs and go to the Superbowl. If you don't believe that, I'm sorry. You're a loser.
Maddog69 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Losing so you can get a better player next year is what is truly short sighted. Winning is not about having the best QB next year. If you want to win you do it by building a consensus winning attitude from all players on the team. Even the ones that are not superstars can perform better with hard work and the mental determination to achieve a higher goal. This losing in hopes of maybe getting your guy in next year's draft is wrong and short sighted. What message are you sending to your existing team members if it is OK to lose now. Wrong message. No matter how you try to spin it. It's not right and it's a low character, underhanded, fowl way to run a team. Build your team the right way by playing to win every Sunday. Every single team in the NFL starts out the season with zero wins. Every single team has a chance to make the playoffs and go to the Superbowl. If you don't believe that, I'm sorry. You're a loser. Wow. Very mature response. I have a few thoughts: -Going 6-10 does not build a winning culture any more that going 3-13 would. -You are discounting the difference a QB makes to a team. Look at NE. With Bledsoe, they were mediocre, when Brady stepped in, they immediately became elite with no change to the rest of the roster. -Nobody is advocating for the Bills to lose intentionally, so they are not sending a bad message to the players by telling them to try to lose -While you are correct that: "Every single team has a chance to make the playoffs and go to the Superbowl.". If you believe that every team has an equal chance of making the playoffs and going to the Superbowl then I don't think it is worth the time discussing this with you any further. Edited May 11, 2011 by Maddog69
The Senator Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Marv Levy knew the difference between a meaningless win and a worthwhile win. When he was coach he would rest his players the final game after everything was clinched and didn't care if the team won or lost the final game. That's because he understood there was something greater at stake (not exposing his key players to injury before the playoffs) than a meaningless win. So, you must think Marv was a loser, since he, unlike you, could distinguish the difference between a meaningless win and the bigger picture. It's a subtle distinction, therefore probably beyond your grasp, but Marv would have referred to what you're describing not as a 'meaningless win' - but rather as a 'meaningless loss' - because there are no "meaningless wins". And, while - as tennesseeboy stated - I can possibly understand resting players for a playoff run only if there's absolutely nothing to be gained by winning the game in terms of home field, etc., I doubt Marv would have sacrificed the chance at a perfect record or other significant milestone just to spell a few guys for one game. In fact I'm certain he would not have, because Marv was not a LOSER, and never fostered any even most minute nuance of a loser's mentality... GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! . Edited May 11, 2011 by The Senator
Orton's Arm Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Losing so you can get a better player next year is what is truly short sighted. Winning is not about having the best QB next year. If you want to win you do it by building a consensus winning attitude from all players on the team. Even the ones that are not superstars can perform better with hard work and the mental determination to achieve a higher goal. This losing in hopes of maybe getting your guy in next year's draft is wrong and short sighted. What message are you sending to your existing team members if it is OK to lose now. Wrong message. No matter how you try to spin it. It's not right and it's a low character, underhanded, fowl way to run a team. Build your team the right way by playing to win every Sunday. Every single team in the NFL starts out the season with zero wins. Every single team has a chance to make the playoffs and go to the Superbowl. If you don't believe that, I'm sorry. You're a loser. "It's not right and it's a low character, underhanded, fowl way to run a team." I would say that those running the team have sometimes done a fowl job of running it, as indicated by Byrd's presence on the roster. Hopefully we'll never see the people in charge do a foul job of running the team.
Rockinon Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 Wow. Very mature response. I have a few thoughts: -Going 6-10 does not build a winning culture any more that going 3-13 would. -You are discounting the difference a QB makes to a team. Look at NE. With Bledsoe, they were mediocre, when Brady stepped in, they immediately became elite with no change to the rest of the roster. -Nobody is advocating for the Bills to lose intentionally, so they are not sending a bad message to the players by telling them to try to lose -While you are correct that: "Every single team has a chance to make the playoffs and go to the Superbowl.". If you believe that every team has an equal chance of making the playoffs and going to the Superbowl then I don't think it is worth the time discussing this with you any further. I believe Chan Gailey used those same bolded words shortly after taking the HC job. He hit the nail on the head. That was not only an accurate statement at the time. It still holds true now. This hoping to be in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes is simply the wrong approach. It's my opinion and you are certainly entitled to your own. I'm going to continue to look at this Andrew Luck hoping as a loser approach, however. The way to winning is in the hands of the guys actually on the field. Andrew Luck isn't even in the NFL yet.
Maddog69 Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 I believe Chan Gailey used those same bolded words shortly after taking the HC job. He hit the nail on the head. That was not only an accurate statement at the time. It still holds true now. This hoping to be in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes is simply the wrong approach. It's my opinion and you are certainly entitled to your own. I'm going to continue to look at this Andrew Luck hoping as a loser approach, however. The way to winning is in the hands of the guys actually on the field. Andrew Luck isn't even in the NFL yet. I'm not on the Andrew Luck bandwagon specifically. I would like to see the team get whichever QB is rated #1 in next year's draft. This whole discussion is silly. I don't think there is 1 person on this board who is not a troll that would say that on any given Sunday they are rooting for the Bills to lose. Every fan on this site wants the Bills to win every Sunday. But there are those who take the point of view, as I do, that if you are not going to be good enough to win 10-12 games and be a serious playoff contender, then it might be more beneficial to the long term success of the team to secure the highest possible draft pick so that you increase your chances of hitting on quality players in the draft. I realize that every draft pick is a risk and none are guaranteed. But if you compare it to Poker, drafting in the top 3-4 picks in the draft is like starting the hand with Pocket Kings. There's no guarantee you will win, but it's better than starting with pocket 3's.
Bangarang Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) This is annoying. People wanted us to tank last year for Luck and he never even declared. How people could want to endure another year of being one of the worst teams in the league for a draft pick is something I'll never understand. Edited May 11, 2011 by Bangarang
The Senator Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) This is annoying. People wanted us to tank last year for Luck and he never even declared. How people could want to endure another year of being one of the worst teams in the league for a draft pick is something I'll never understand. You know, from purely an NCAA eligibility perspective, Andy's still a red-shirt junior - and after this year could still hang at 'The Farm' for his senior season while earning a Masters degree. (Christian Ponder did just that at Florida!) I'm guessing then the ersatz Bills fans would just have us keep losing year-after year until Andy's ready??? . Edited May 11, 2011 by The Senator
Bangarang Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 You know, from purely an NCAA eligibility perspective, Andy's still a red-shirt junior - and after this year could still hang at 'The Farm' for his senior season while earning a Masters degree. (Christian Ponder did just that at Florida!) I'm guessing then the ersatz Bills fans would just have us keep losing year-after year until Andy's ready??? . I was going to mention that but I figured why bother? We'll just have to tank next season if he doesn't declare. Then if he decides he'd rather go into the field he got his degrees in and never touch a football again, we can keep tanking until there's another can't miss QB.
Recommended Posts