would you rather win out or loss out.

[Orton's Arm]

Win every game. Why would anyone want to see anything less?

Winning breeds confidence and confidence breeds resilience.

People complain that we only beat teams with losing records. Is it better to lose to them?

Winning gets free agents to want to come play here. Our own free agents will want to stay.

Winnning gets coaches to want to come coach here. Or our coaches stick around and we don't have to blow things up every three years.

Winning gets fans to pay for tickets so the team stays here.

 

And I'll add another thing. Especially win against the Dolphins and the Jets so that the division knows that they can't just pencil in a "w" when they see us on the schedule.

 

The last time the Bills have been to the playoffs was 1999. I'm fairly sure we have the longest active non-playoff streak in the league.

 

Over the last 12 years (the non-playoff years), the Bills have had a top-5 pick just twice. (Mike Williams and Marcel Dareus.) The last time the Bills had the first overall pick was 1985 (Bruce Smith).

 

This team has been good at winning just enough games, against bad teams, to almost always keep it out of the top five picks of the draft. Typically when the Bills pick, the most obvious and best QB prospects are off the board.

 

2000. Chad Pennington went 18th. The Bills picked 26th.

2001: Mike Vick went 1st overall, and Drew Brees went 32nd overall. The Bills picked 21st, after having traded down. They missed on Drew Brees.

2002: Three QBs chosen in the first round; all of whom were busts. The Bills picked 4th overall. By that point, two of the three first round QBs were off the board.

2003: Three QBs were chosen in the first round: Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich, and Kyle Boller. All three were off the board before the Bills picked at 23rd overall.

2004: Eli Manning (first overall), Philip Rivers (4th overall) and Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall) were all off the board before the Bills' first pick (13th overall). The Bills therefore contented themselves with the 4th QB taken in that draft (Losman, at 22nd overall).

2005: The Bills had no first round pick; having traded it away for Losman. Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, and Jason Campbell were taken in the first round.

2006: Only one QB (Vince Young) was off the board before the Bills picked at 8th overall. But instead of taking Jay Cutler or Matt Leinart with their pick, the Bills chose Donte Whitner.

2007: Not a good year for first round QBs: the two chosen were JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn. Quinn was still available when the Bills' pick came up.

2008: Matt Ryan (3rd overall) was long gone by the time the Bills picked (11th overall). But instead of taking Joe Flacco (who went 18th overall), the Bills chose Leodis McKelvin. Another miss.

2009: Matt Stafford (1st overall) and Mark Sanchez (5th overall) were gone before the Bills picked (11th overall). But instead of taking Josh Freeman (who went 17th overall), they chose Aaron Maybin.

2010: Sam Bradford went first overall; and Tim Tebow went 25th overall. The Bills used the 9th overall pick on Spiller.

 

That's two definite misses (Brees and Flacco), and two arguable misses (Cutler and Freeman). Of those four players, only one (Brees) is a franchise QB. That's one miss on a first round franchise QB over the 11 year period described above. All the other first round franchise QBs who have slipped through their fingers over that time did so because of poor draft position. (Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers.)

 

Maybe Nix will somehow figure out how to get a franchise QB as part of this rebuilding effort. If he does, the rebuilding effort will be successful. But if not, then Nix's successor should blow the team up, and seek to go 1-15 for as many seasons as it takes to get a franchise QB. Only after that puzzle piece is in place should the Bills start worrying about things like "a culture of winning" or "you play to win the game." Winning meaningless games against the dregs of the NFL hasn't exactly gotten the Bills very far.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

... Maybe Nix will somehow figure out how to get a franchise QB as part of this rebuilding effort. If he does, the rebuilding effort will be successful. But if not, then Nix's successor should blow the team up, and seek to go 1-15 for as many seasons as it takes to get a franchise QB. Only after that puzzle piece is in place should the Bills start worrying about things like "a culture of winning" or "you play to win the game." Winning meaningless games against the dregs of the NFL hasn't exactly gotten the Bills very far.

 

Yeah. Try selling "lose games on purpose" in the locker room and see how far it gets you.

 

The level of naivete on this board is staggering sometimes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

Yeah. Try selling "lose games on purpose" in the locker room and see how far it gets you.

 

The level of naivete on this board is staggering sometimes.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> The level of naivete on this board is staggering sometimes.

 

Indeed.

 

In my post, I wrote that if Buddy fails to find a franchise QB, "his successor should blow the team up, and seek to go 1-15 for as many seasons as it takes to get a franchise QB."

 

The one thought which came into your mind when you read the above was "selling 'lose games on purpose' in the locker room." You disregarded all the other ways a GM might cause his team to go 1-15. Which was very naive of you.

[JohninMinn.]

Win out. The team needs to develop a winning atmosphere now. This draft doesnt have a team changer in it.

[markgbe]

win out. i don't understand people who always wish for 0-16. the draft is not the end all say all. plenty of 8-8 teams have fixed their problems drafting middle of the road.

 

A lot of you want the Bills to be the lions a few years ago... drafting top 10 multiple years in a row... The lions are 4-8 this year.... what's their problem? no franchise QB? coaching? cheap owner? should they lose out?

Edited December 5, 2012 by markgbe

[section122]

Did anyone's vote swing after the win this weekend? Now that the sample size is only 4 games and the worst they can do is 5-11? I would imagine as the sample size changes it would have to swing some of the people that voted to lose out over to the win out side but I don't have any clue what goes on in people's head anymore.

 

The Bills are currently drafting 11th and due to a weak s.o.s are actually the first 5-7 team drafting right now. Some numbers I found interesting though for the "the Bills only beat crap teams" crowd The Falcons are 11-1 s.o.s .389. Bengals and the almighty Andy Dalton s.o.s .431. The amazing Steelers s.o.s. .472. My only point is other teams beat/play bad teams too - winning is all that matters. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME HELLO!

[Gugny]

Rooting for your favorite team to lose is dumb.

[Mango]

How do players get better if they keep losing? So we stop coaching? Athletes stop progressing? The bills could have the first 22 picks in the upcoming draft and be in the same place they are today

[K-9]

> The level of naivete on this board is staggering sometimes.

 

Indeed.

 

In my post, I wrote that if Buddy fails to find a franchise QB, "his successor should blow the team up, and seek to go 1-15 for as many seasons as it takes to get a franchise QB."

 

The one thought which came into your mind when you read the above was "selling 'lose games on purpose' in the locker room." You disregarded all the other ways a GM might cause his team to go 1-15. Which was very naive of you.

 

Please enlighten me on "all the other ways" a GM might cause his team to go 1-15 other than being utterly futile at his job and assembling a team that is bad enough to finish with that record. Your problem seems to be that Buddy just isn't bad enough for your liking at the moment but yet he should somehow get bad enough over the last 4 games in order to lose those games. How does he do that? Order Chan to bench starters? Yank them from games?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

Please enlighten me on "all the other ways" a GM might cause his team to go 1-15 other than being utterly futile at his job and assembling a team that is bad enough to finish with that record. Your problem seems to be that Buddy just isn't bad enough for your liking at the moment but yet he should somehow get bad enough over the last 4 games in order to lose those games. How does he do that? Order Chan to bench starters? Yank them from games?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> Please enlighten me on "all the other ways" a GM might cause his team to go 1-15 other than being utterly

> futile at his job and assembling a team that is bad enough to finish with that record.

 

I would have thought that this would have been glaringly obvious. But maybe because that's because I've spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I was a GM. Judging from your post, you have not.

 

A typical GM can expect to have a honeymoon period of 2 - 3 years. Most GMs will start off with relatively little young talent. A GM who wants to win as many games as possible, as quickly as possible, will look for stopgaps, short-term solutions, and Band-Aids. He will sign aging players. In the draft, he will often emphasize positions associated with providing a quick impact; such as RB, LB, and S. You could even trade away early picks for aging players. Bills fans should be familiar with these measures, because we've seen our GMs use every last one of them.

 

A GM who wanted to build for the long term should do the opposite. He shouldn't sign aging players as stopgaps; and should trade or release whichever aging players he may already have. At quarterback, he should either have the long-term answer in place, or he should have nothing. One or the other is fine, but nothing in between. If I was a GM in my honeymoon period, and if I didn't have a long-term answer at QB, my team's starting QB would be decided by a competition between Tyler Thigpen and Brian Brohm. A QB like that, alone, would be sufficient to get me most of my way to 1-15; especially if I'm eschewing aging stopgap players. With a 1-15 record, I'd have the draft position needed to take a guy like Andrew Luck.

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick is the exact opposite of what I'd be looking for in a starting QB. He's good enough to win my team some games (thus spoiling its draft position), but not good enough to be a long term answer. If the roster I inherited had a Ryan Fitzpatrick on it, I'd trade him for draft picks. Or would release him, if I couldn't get anything for him in a trade.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

WIN OUT. Losing out is the cowards way.

[DrDawkinstein]

You also need to consider the situation that our beloved owner has us in. At an ailing 94 years old, and with no plan to keep the team in Buffalo, every one of these games may be our last win to enjoy.

 

So take it one week at a time, enjoy the wins, dont get too upset about the losses, and appreciate the team while we have it.

 

Once the situation changes, and if the team stays in Buffalo under new ownership, then go all in emotionally.

[K-9]

> Please enlighten me on "all the other ways" a GM might cause his team to go 1-15 other than being utterly

> futile at his job and assembling a team that is bad enough to finish with that record.

 

I would have thought that this would have been glaringly obvious. But maybe because that's because I've spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I was a GM. Judging from your post, you have not.

 

A typical GM can expect to have a honeymoon period of 2 - 3 years. Most GMs will start off with relatively little young talent. A GM who wants to win as many games as possible, as quickly as possible, will look for stopgaps, short-term solutions, and Band-Aids. He will sign aging players. In the draft, he will often emphasize positions associated with providing a quick impact; such as RB, LB, and S. You could even trade away early picks for aging players. Bills fans should be familiar with these measures, because we've seen our GMs use every last one of them.

 

A GM who wanted to build for the long term should do the opposite. He shouldn't sign aging players as stopgaps; and should trade or release whichever aging players he may already have. At quarterback, he should either have the long-term answer in place, or he should have nothing. One or the other is fine, but nothing in between. If I was a GM in my honeymoon period, and if I didn't have a long-term answer at QB, my team's starting QB would be decided by a competition between Tyler Thigpen and Brian Brohm. A QB like that, alone, would be sufficient to get me most of my way to 1-15; especially if I'm eschewing aging stopgap players. With a 1-15 record, I'd have the draft position needed to take a guy like Andrew Luck.

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick is the exact opposite of what I'd be looking for in a starting QB. He's good enough to win my team some games (thus spoiling its draft position), but not good enough to be a long term answer.

 

I don't spend one second imagining what I'd do if I were the Bills' GM. Complete waste of time. If we want to discuss what I'd do if I were an OC or DC, then fine.

 

But like I said, try selling your GM vision in the locker room. You know, to the other 52 professional football players you are accountable to; the very ones who've seen what Thigpen, Brohm, and Fitzpatrick actually DO every day in practice, in the film room, and in the locker room. Or to the defense that you seem to want to leave alone. You may go 1-15 all right (and that's not guaranteed), but your career would be short-lived as any owner would fire you for complete incompetence.

 

You might gain some measure of satisfaction as you watch that franchise QB, selected first over all, from the comfort of your own living room though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[MRW]

You may go 1-15 all right (and that's not guaranteed), but your career would be short-lived as any owner would fire you for complete incompetence.

Yep. If Bill Polian couldn't keep his job after last year, why would any GM feel confident in throwing seasons to get a high pick? And now we're talking about potentially multiple seasons, deliberately trying to get a high pick? Not going to happen.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't spend one second imagining what I'd do if I were the Bills' GM. Complete waste of time. If we want to discuss what I'd do if I were an OC or DC, then fine.

 

But like I said, try selling your GM vision in the locker room. You know, to the other 52 professional football players you are accountable to; the very ones who've seen what Thigpen, Brohm, and Fitzpatrick actually DO every day in practice, in the film room, and in the locker room. Or to the defense that you seem to want to leave alone. You may go 1-15 all right (and that's not guaranteed), but your career would be short-lived as any owner would fire you for complete incompetence.

 

You might gain some measure of satisfaction as you watch that franchise QB, selected first over all, from the comfort of your own living room though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> I don't spend one second imagining what I'd do if I were the Bills' GM. Complete waste of time.

 

That's probably why this conversation isn't going anywhere. I am interested in, and have thought about, the subject in question. You aren't interested in the subject matter, have nothing of value to contribute, but felt like participating anyway.

 

> But like I said, try selling your GM vision in the locker room. You know, to the other 52 professional football players you are accountable to . . .

 

A GM is accountable to the owner, not to the players. It's reasonable to assume that a new GM will inherit very little young talent. Had there been an abundance of young talent on the roster, the old GM wouldn't have been fired. Why should a GM hold himself accountable to a roster of players who, in nine cases out of ten, he plans to get rid of anyway?

 

> You may go 1-15 all right (and that's not guaranteed), but your career would be short-lived as any owner would fire you for complete incompetence.

 

You are ignoring my comment about the honeymoon period, and you are assuming that the owner is incapable of understanding the concept of short term pain for long term gain.

 

Yep. If Bill Polian couldn't keep his job after last year, why would any GM feel confident in throwing seasons to get a high pick? And now we're talking about potentially multiple seasons, deliberately trying to get a high pick? Not going to happen.

 

Bill Polian deserved to be fired. His son Chris had been given increasing power within the organization. Any time someone else butted heads with Chris, that other person was typically gone. The result was that the Colts' front office lost talent over the years. As the front office became depleted, good drafts for the Colts became increasingly rare. Toward the end, the Colts had so little young talent that they were a Peyton Manning injury away from being a 1-15 team.

 

A GM who goes 1-15 in his first or even second year can blame it on his predecessor. A GM who goes 1-15 after over a decade at the helm will always receive the blame. Exactly as he should.

[MRW]

> But like I said, try selling your GM vision in the locker room. You know, to the other 52 professional football players you are accountable to . . .

 

A GM is accountable to the owner, not to the players. It's reasonable to assume that a new GM will inherit very little young talent. Had there been an abundance of young talent on the roster, the old GM wouldn't have been fired. Why should a GM hold himself accountable to a roster of players who, in nine cases out of ten, he plans to get rid of anyway?

 

> You may go 1-15 all right (and that's not guaranteed), but your career would be short-lived as any owner would fire you for complete incompetence.

 

You are ignoring my comment about the honeymoon period, and you are assuming that the owner is incapable of understanding the concept of short term pain for long term gain.

There are a number of unstated assumptions here, among them:

 

1. The method you're advocating is more likely to lead to a Super Bowl win

2. The hypothetical owner in this scenario values a Super Bowl win as highly as you do, and will not be satisfied with a consistent winning team that does not win a championship

 

Leaving aside #1 for the time being, as it's been debated ad nauseam, I think #2 is highly problematic and undercuts your argument quite thoroughly. You are assuming a far higher degree of patience from the owner than I think is warranted. Owners may put up with several seasons of mediocrity, but you will not get more than one season of outright tanking (and even that puts you on the hotseat).

[K-9]

 

That's probably why this conversation isn't going anywhere. I am interested in, and have thought about, the subject in question. You aren't interested in the subject matter, have nothing of value to contribute, but felt like participating anyway.

 

Oh, so this thread isn't about whether or not the Bills should lose out? It's been about what we would all do as GM? I missed that.

 

A GM is accountable to the owner, not to the players. It's reasonable to assume that a new GM will inherit very little young talent. Had there been an abundance of young talent on the roster, the old GM wouldn't have been fired. Why should a GM hold himself accountable to a roster of players who, in nine cases out of ten, he plans to get rid of anyway?

 

Like I said earlier, the naivete around here can be staggering at times. The point that you know I made is that when the entire locker room sees obviously wrong personnel decisions being made, it undermines everything else the front office and coaches try to do. The best recent example of starting a QB without locker room buy-in is Losman for Bledsoe. Tore the locker room apart. How'd that work out for that GM?

 

You are ignoring my comment about the honeymoon period, and you are assuming that the owner is incapable of understanding the concept of short term pain for long term gain.

 

Honeymoon period or not, your machinations at the QB position don't do anything to guarantee enough losses to secure your high draft pick. You have to screw up in other areas as well. But let's talk about the CURRENT Bills team, shall we? How are you going to ensure 1-15 next year? It's not like the Bills have a ton of vets past their prime or a lack of promising younger talent. I guess that means you cut Fitz, start Thigpen, and relegate Jackson to the backup spot? But yeah, you're not accountable to the players in the locker room so I'm sure they won't mind one bit as you seek to take a mediocre team backwards.

 

Bill Polian deserved to be fired. His son Chris had been given increasing power within the organization. Any time someone else butted heads with Chris, that other person was typically gone. The result was that the Colts' front office lost talent over the years. As the front office became depleted, good drafts for the Colts became increasingly rare. Toward the end, the Colts had so little young talent that they were a Peyton Manning injury away from being a 1-15 team.

 

Segue.

 

A GM who goes 1-15 in his first or even second year can blame it on his predecessor. A GM who goes 1-15 after over a decade at the helm will always receive the blame. Exactly as he should.

 

That's true. But a GM who purposely places his team in the best position to lose is just preceding someone else. You won't last long doing it that way. You just can't get a team to run for the bus every week unless you screw the pooch so badly that you won't last long. A losing GM still has to see incremental improvement. Your formula doesn't seem to include that requirement.

 

I'd still like to know how you're gonna get this team to 1-15 next year. This team. I'm all ears.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited December 5, 2012 by K-9

[The Wiz]

Win out.

 

They could be 0-12 right now and I would want them to win out. Draft means nothing if they don't know how to draft.

[RealityCheck]

The last time the Bills have been to the playoffs was 1999. I'm fairly sure we have the longest active non-playoff streak in the league.

 

Over the last 12 years (the non-playoff years), the Bills have had a top-5 pick just twice. (Mike Williams and Marcel Dareus.) The last time the Bills had the first overall pick was 1985 (Bruce Smith).

 

This team has been good at winning just enough games, against bad teams, to almost always keep it out of the top five picks of the draft. Typically when the Bills pick, the most obvious and best QB prospects are off the board.

 

2000. Chad Pennington went 18th. The Bills picked 26th.

2001: Mike Vick went 1st overall, and Drew Brees went 32nd overall. The Bills picked 21st, after having traded down. They missed on Drew Brees.

2002: Three QBs chosen in the first round; all of whom were busts. The Bills picked 4th overall. By that point, two of the three first round QBs were off the board.

2003: Three QBs were chosen in the first round: Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich, and Kyle Boller. All three were off the board before the Bills picked at 23rd overall.

2004: Eli Manning (first overall), Philip Rivers (4th overall) and Ben Roethlisberger (11th overall) were all off the board before the Bills' first pick (13th overall). The Bills therefore contented themselves with the 4th QB taken in that draft (Losman, at 22nd overall).

2005: The Bills had no first round pick; having traded it away for Losman. Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers, and Jason Campbell were taken in the first round.

2006: Only one QB (Vince Young) was off the board before the Bills picked at 8th overall. But instead of taking Jay Cutler or Matt Leinart with their pick, the Bills chose Donte Whitner.

2007: Not a good year for first round QBs: the two chosen were JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn. Quinn was still available when the Bills' pick came up.

2008: Matt Ryan (3rd overall) was long gone by the time the Bills picked (11th overall). But instead of taking Joe Flacco (who went 18th overall), the Bills chose Leodis McKelvin. Another miss.

2009: Matt Stafford (1st overall) and Mark Sanchez (5th overall) were gone before the Bills picked (11th overall). But instead of taking Josh Freeman (who went 17th overall), they chose Aaron Maybin.

2010: Sam Bradford went first overall; and Tim Tebow went 25th overall. The Bills used the 9th overall pick on Spiller.

 

That's two definite misses (Brees and Flacco), and two arguable misses (Cutler and Freeman). Of those four players, only one (Brees) is a franchise QB. That's one miss on a first round franchise QB over the 11 year period described above. All the other first round franchise QBs who have slipped through their fingers over that time did so because of poor draft position. (Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers.)

 

Maybe Nix will somehow figure out how to get a franchise QB as part of this rebuilding effort. If he does, the rebuilding effort will be successful. But if not, then Nix's successor should blow the team up, and seek to go 1-15 for as many seasons as it takes to get a franchise QB. Only after that puzzle piece is in place should the Bills start worrying about things like "a culture of winning" or "you play to win the game." Winning meaningless games against the dregs of the NFL hasn't exactly gotten the Bills very far.

> I don't spend one second imagining what I'd do if I were the Bills' GM. Complete waste of time.

 

That's probably why this conversation isn't going anywhere. I am interested in, and have thought about, the subject in question. You aren't interested in the subject matter, have nothing of value to contribute, but felt like participating anyway.

 

> But like I said, try selling your GM vision in the locker room. You know, to the other 52 professional football players you are accountable to . . .

 

A GM is accountable to the owner, not to the players. It's reasonable to assume that a new GM will inherit very little young talent. Had there been an abundance of young talent on the roster, the old GM wouldn't have been fired. Why should a GM hold himself accountable to a roster of players who, in nine cases out of ten, he plans to get rid of anyway?

 

> You may go 1-15 all right (and that's not guaranteed), but your career would be short-lived as any owner would fire you for complete incompetence.

 

You are ignoring my comment about the honeymoon period, and you are assuming that the owner is incapable of understanding the concept of short term pain for long term gain.

 

 

 

Bill Polian deserved to be fired. His son Chris had been given increasing power within the organization. Any time someone else butted heads with Chris, that other person was typically gone. The result was that the Colts' front office lost talent over the years. As the front office became depleted, good drafts for the Colts became increasingly rare. Toward the end, the Colts had so little young talent that they were a Peyton Manning injury away from being a 1-15 team.

 

A GM who goes 1-15 in his first or even second year can blame it on his predecessor. A GM who goes 1-15 after over a decade at the helm will always receive the blame. Exactly as he should.

I am sold. The day that I own an NFL team and want to lose an epic amount of games you would be my first choice. If I were the new owner of the Bills you could be instrumental in having all home games blacked out and setting the stage for moving the team. Once I move the team after a few 1-15 seasons and get the 1st overall pick, I would fire you (scapegoat) and get a real GM to right the ship, since after everything you typed points at a focus on losing and nothing about picking great players and managing the cap through it all. You make me think of Al Bundy's genius..."if you're gonna lose, lose big".

[K-9]

I am sold. The day that I own an NFL team and want to lose an epic amount of games you would be my first choice. If I were the new owner of the Bills you could be instrumental in having all home games blacked out and setting the stage for moving the team. Once I move the team after a few 1-15 seasons and get the 1st overall pick, I would fire you (scapegoat) and get a real GM to right the ship, since after everything you typed points at a focus on losing and nothing about picking great players and managing the cap through it all. You make me think of Al Bundy's genius..."if you're gonna lose, lose big".

 

You make a good point about the reaction of the fans in his scenario. I guess the GM isn't accountable to the fans, either. Or to the impact on the bottom line. Or to a host of things OTHER than making sure the worst QB on the team starts as to ensure a 1-15 record. Heck, why not just bring in ANYBODY to play the position seeing as how the goal is to suck enough to ensure a crack at a blue-chip QB?

 

It's settled then. Ryan Lindell is our next QB.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited December 5, 2012 by K-9