Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 If the Bills had the mumber 1pick in the draft each of the last 5 drafts, the would not be significantly better tham they are now. The entire organization, beginning from the top down does not have winning in their list of the top 5 priorities. Look at the FO and staff in place. Non of these losers were on any team's A,B, or C list of potential hires. These guys are barely adequate caretakers for a franchise who's owner retired a long time ago. So, it does not matter what draft the position or who's drafted, once they enter the one bills drive corridor, they become cross contaminated with the same losing tradition and mentality just from being surrounded by losers > If the Bills had the mumber 1pick in the draft each of the last 5 drafts, the would not be significantly better tham they are now. I strongly disagree. With five years of #1 picks, Andrew Luck would be our QB. Even without a first overall pick, Buddy was able to fix the Bills' OL. Spiller is averaging more yards per carry this season than either O.J. Simpson or Thurman Thomas have ever averaged in a season. With a franchise QB like Luck, a very good offensive line, and with a reasonably solid collection of receiving threats, the Bills' offense would be something special. Even if the other four first overall picks were wasted, Andrew Luck alone would have been enough to have fundamentally changed this team.
thewildrabbit Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I don't believe it was "luck" for one second. It was calculated. They tanked it in spectacular fashion that one season so that they could go from P. Manning number one to P. Manning number 2. I agree wholeheartedly After the 2010 season the Colts knew that they needed a QB to replace Manning, instead of going into that draft or free agency looking for a QB to replace Manning they purposely waited a few weeks before training camp opened to bring in old warhorse QB Kerry Collins. But the biggest thing is their OC retired just before that so a new QB is coming in with no Manning or OC to teach him the offense. Bill Polian calculated that because his team was predicated on building a lead quickly and then letting his smaller, quicker defensive players pin their ears back going after the opposing QB, that the team would flounder badly without a top QB, and he was right. Polian knew that Andrew Luck was a once on a decade player and set his team up to obtain him. The owner of the Colts had to make someone pay for 2-14 season and the Polians both paid. Bills son, Chris Polian got another job right away with the Falcons as a scouting director. Not to shabby. Bill Polian went to work for ESPN and is now seeking another stint in the NFL.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Usually when we have this discussion, someone invokes the famed Herm Edwards quote. i just can't bring myself to hope for the bills to lose out. those "insignifigant wins" are like little rays of sunshine in a season of darkness. I know how you feel and as was pointed out, agree from an emotional standpoint. That said, the OP makes a fairly good point, the Bills bad drafting notwithstanding.
benderbender Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 i just can't bring myself to hope for the bills to lose out. those "insignifigant wins" are like little rays of sunshine in a season of darkness. Yeah, little draft position destroying rays of sunshine. Bask in them! Bask I say!
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 I don't believe it was "luck" for one second. It was calculated. They tanked it in spectacular fashion that one season so that they could go from P. Manning number one to P. Manning number 2. Ah so it was all the plan to lose manning and half their defensive starters? I don't want any guy that says "meh, lets lose a few games" on my team. No way, no how. If they don't have the pride to play every Sunday I don't believe that they have the pride to do what it takes to win any given Sunday. I'd celebrate the new high pick joining our team and every player or coach that tanked for it getting fired. Usually when we have this discussion, someone invokes the famed Herm Edwards quote. I know how you feel and as was pointed out, agree from an emotional standpoint. That said, the OP makes a fairly good point, the Bills bad drafting notwithstanding. No draft pick is a lock. Not one. An acceptance of losing is a highly dangerous thing in a locker room. No good. Do you really want to bring your top qb into an atmosphere that involves losing purposefully to hang your last qb out to dry?
ChasBB Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Every year I was one of those voices that said the Bills should always try to win no matter what. Well, that's it. I'm in your camp now. There's been nothing but ineptitude at QB ever since Jim Kelly retired. I've had enough. I'm perfectly fine finishing 3-13 and landing a top 1 or 2 pick to use on a franchise QB.
Saint Doug Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Speaking of which, the Bills play the Jags on December 2nd. Under no circumstances should the Bills win this game. That is a must lose. If they're going to win one single game more, it better not be the Jags.
phypon Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Great post and great points! Couldn't agree with you more. Also, glad you backed up what you said with players and draft position. I think the reason why so many people don't like the idea of tanking is that we live in an instant gratification type of society. People today seem incapable of seeing down the road. When someone has your position you are told that you are not a fan. However, you are a fan. You are looking out for the best interest of the team, you're just looking a bit further down the road (and not that much further). Logic dictates that at this point in the season, the way the team is playing, there really is no hope of a playoff appearance. Nothing can be gained by winning meaningless games right now. Let's say they do win some games, if the staff gets fired anyway, all that "winning to promote a winning attitude" goes out the window. With a new staff a new air surrounds the team. That's the point of changing a staff in the first place, so that you can start from zero and not from a "negative realm". I guess I'm rambling now, but well said and great post!
It's in My Blood Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 To OP: It's called draft picks. You trade them in order to move up in position and take the guy you want.
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 To OP: It's called draft picks. You trade them in order to move up in position and take the guy you want. > To OP: It's called draft picks. You trade them in order to move up in position and take the guy you want. If only it were that simple. But what if you're picking in the late teens, and the guy you want is Andrew Luck? Do you have any idea what kind of price you'd have to pay to move from the late teens to first overall? (Assuming that deal was available at all. Which it might not have been.) But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Colts would have been willing to seriously consider trade offers for the Andrew Luck pick. Let's furthermore say that the Bills had given their next few drafts to the Colts in exchange for Luck. The loss of all those draft picks would have been very painful. The Bills wouldn't have Gilmore, Glenn, or Graham. I'll grant that Luck is considerably more valuable than all three of those guys put together; and that the trade would have worked out well for the Bills. (Assuming the Colts had been foolish enough to make it.) But by avoiding meaningless wins, the Bills could have had Luck and those other players.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Usually when we have this discussion, someone invokes the famed Herm Edwards quote. you play to win the game
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) > To OP: It's called draft picks. You trade them in order to move up in position and take the guy you want. If only it were that simple. But what if you're picking in the late teens, and the guy you want is Andrew Luck? Do you have any idea what kind of price you'd have to pay to move from the late teens to first overall? (Assuming that deal was available at all. Which it might not have been.) But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Colts would have been willing to seriously consider trade offers for the Andrew Luck pick. Let's furthermore say that the Bills had given their next few drafts to the Colts in exchange for Luck. The loss of all those draft picks would have been very painful. The Bills wouldn't have Gilmore, Glenn, or Graham. I'll grant that Luck is considerably more valuable than all three of those guys put together; and that the trade would have worked out well for the Bills. (Assuming the Colts had been foolish enough to make it.) But by avoiding meaningless wins, the Bills could have had Luck and those other players. And a fired coach, and fired gm, and cut half their roster for failing so badly.... I know that's not sounding that terrible right now, and who knows, might be the best thing but if you do it and that guy ends up flopping..... No good. Ill he the one to argue that you build a culture where every week is must win, that you support your teammates at all costs and even if it costs you a slot or some picks to trade it's better than the dysfunction of playing to lose so you can replace your qb. Which locker room do you want that guy walking into? The one that's a pick short but has a lot of heart or the one that's got a second rounder but has just thrown the last 8 games? Edited November 8, 2012 by NoSaint
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 And a fired coach, and fired gm, and cut half their roster for failing so badly.... I know that's not sounding that terrible right now, and who knows, might be the best thing but if you do it and that guy ends up flopping..... No good. Ill he the one to argue that you build a culture where every week is must win, that you support your teammates at all costs and even if it costs you a slot or some picks to trade it's better than the dysfunction of playing to lose so you can replace your qb. Which locker room do you want that guy walking into? The one that's a pick short but has a lot of heart or the one that's got a second rounder but has just thrown the last 8 games? The Bills have achieved plenty of meaningless, draft position-destroying wins over the last decade. How much have those wins helped create a culture of winning? On the other hand, you've raised some good points. If you tell a group of players to tank a particular season, it's hard to tell that same group to give it everything they have, and fight for each other like brothers, the next season. If I was a GM just hired by a rebuilding team, I would tank the first season. My method of tanking would be as follows: 1) Release almost every player over the age of 30. I'd be especially inclined to release players who'd make good short-term stopgaps, but who are only a few years away from retiring. 2) At quarterback, I would do one of two things. a) A franchise QB, if possible, or if already on the roster. b) A QB competition between Brian Brohm, Tyler Thigpen, and Alex van Pelt. The absolute last thing I'd want at quarterback would be a Ryan Fitzpatrick. Fitz is good enough to get you a few wins you couldn't have gotten with Brohm or Thigpen; but he's not good enough to be the long-term answer at QB. 3) I would treat a number of other key positions the way I'm treating the quarterback position. Either you get a long term answer at the position, or else nothing. I would not sign any credible stopgap players--at least not in the first or perhaps the second year. 4) I would not hesitate to put key players on injured reserve, if given the slightest excuse. After 1 - 2 years as GM my honeymoon phase would wear off. I would then have to worry about winning enough games to avoid getting fired. During the honeymoon, I'd want to have at very least acquired my franchise quarterback; and ideally a few other building block players as well. Unfortunately, Nix's honeymoon period ended without him having acquired a franchise QB. Now he has to figure out how to win enough games to keep his job, while losing enough games to have the draft position needed to get that franchise QB. His options are very constrained. But if he somehow manages to get a franchise QB despite having painted himself into a corner, he will be more than halfway toward building a Super Bowl champion.
Tcali Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Indy is profoundly lucky...with a good dose of shrewdness thrown in there.I wonder if it was actually polian who ordered the season tanked.If he did the Colts owe him more than they could ever repay. And w Indy their 2nd string QB was in actuality so horrendous that no one could prove in any way that it was a tank job. Luck is already one of the top NFL QBs. He was a CANT MISS---and those are rare in NFL history---Elway,-and i cant think of another right a t this moment.You could see that in college. The Bills have achieved plenty of meaningless, draft position-destroying wins over the last decade. How much have those wins helped create a culture of winning? On the other hand, you've raised some good points. If you tell a group of players to tank a particular season, it's hard to tell that same group to give it everything they have, and fight for each other like brothers, the next season. If I was a GM just hired by a rebuilding team, I would tank the first season. My method of tanking would be as follows: 1) Release almost every player over the age of 30. I'd be especially inclined to release players who'd make good short-term stopgaps, but who are only a few years away from retiring. 2) At quarterback, I would do one of two things. a) A franchise QB, if possible, or if already on the roster. b) A QB competition between Brian Brohm, Tyler Thigpen, and Alex van Pelt. The absolute last thing I'd want at quarterback would be a Ryan Fitzpatrick. Fitz is good enough to get you a few wins you couldn't have gotten with Brohm or Thigpen; but he's not good enough to be the long-term answer at QB. 3) I would treat a number of other key positions the way I'm treating the quarterback position. Either you get a long term answer at the position, or else nothing. I would not sign any credible stopgap players--at least not in the first or perhaps the second year. 4) I would not hesitate to put key players on injured reserve, if given the slightest excuse. After 1 - 2 years as GM my honeymoon phase would wear off. I would then have to worry about winning enough games to avoid getting fired. During the honeymoon, I'd want to have at very least acquired my franchise quarterback; and ideally a few other building block players as well. Unfortunately, Nix's honeymoon period ended without him having acquired a franchise QB. Now he has to figure out how to win enough games to keep his job, while losing enough games to have the draft position needed to get that franchise QB. His options are very constrained. But if he somehow manages to get a franchise QB despite having painted himself into a corner, he will be more than halfway toward building a Super Bowl champion. Well stated and well thought out.
#34fan Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Sure. -Lose out so we can draft a stud QB, then watch in HORROR as Gailey dismantles everything good about the kid in order to fit his dumass offense? No, no, no, no, NO! -Gailey can start packing his s#!t tonight as far as I'm concerned. FIRE HIS ASS! Hire an Interinm coach, and THEN tank the season. Keep Buddy around as long as he's committed to drafting our franchise QB. Edited November 8, 2012 by #34fan
Keukasmallies Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 OP, let's cut to the chase: Outline your plan for losing throughout the rest of the season; give us specifics so we can ponder the impact of your thoughts.
bananathumb Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 To the OP, good presentation. I always think your way, but this year don't worry: they'll be lucky to win another game or two no matter how hard they try. Barkley should be there for the picking.
Wayne Cubed Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 I get the idea and premise behind what the OP is saying, but... no pick is a lock or gurantee. Andrew Luck is possibly a once in a decade pick. Is there a pick like that this year? Probably not. So basically, you tank the season and take a 50/50 chance on a QB or whoever. Lets say that QB doesn't do well, now the cycle starts again. And it keeps happening over and over and over again. Meanwhile you've lost the fan base and possibly the money to keep the team. Aslo, players are as good as the organization they are brought into.
Saint Doug Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 you play to win the game But, we as fans, are not playing the games. The Bills players are. Therefore, there's a clear distinction of what fans want and what players strive for. I don't think anyone here wants the Bills to purposely tank the season (although I have my doubts sometimes). But, if they were to give an effort, their current effort, but still lose out, I don't see any problem there. Winning insignificant games against last place NFC teams have hurt is more than helped us. I get the idea and premise behind what the OP is saying, but... no pick is a lock or gurantee. But we have shown complete ineptitude in trying to draft a franchise QB from the 6-10th position. It just hasn't happened. It's like the Bills are waiting for lightening to strike when it's not even raining. In contrast, although there are no guarantees, there's not one person on this board who would admit that the chances of getting a franchise QB are equal between picks 1-6 versus picks 6-10.
Recommended Posts