SDS Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Anyone else experiencing an out-of-body-experience while reading this stuff? 570971[/snapback] <flush> yes.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 <flush> yes. 570973[/snapback] Thought that was you floating by!
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 17, 2006 Author Posted January 17, 2006 <flush> yes. 570973[/snapback] So that is where you found your Lotto based investment strategies. That explains it.
GG Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 If only FSF spent 1/2 the time in reading than writing.... Even worse, much to DF's surprise (again the panic by us) we rolled his achieved bonuses into his salary and when DF played as AJ Smith assessed after RJ proved to be injury prone, we faced an $11 million cap hit at the QB position for 1998 which forced us to extend and prorate DF and ignited a QB controversy which still plagues us. Even worse, the CBA MANDATES that the unlikely to be earned bonuses that are earned in Year 1 HAVE to be rolled into Year 2, so it's highly unlikely that anyone was caught by surprise of Flutie's cap hit. Bills had no choice but to sign him to a long-term deal, or be in cap hell in 1999. Carry on.
SDS Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 So that is where you found your Lotto based investment strategies. That explains it. 570985[/snapback] when you pull out ridiculous scenarios filled with all sorts of caveats - then expect to catch some crap. You narrowly specify one way to obtain a QB and say that isn't as successful as the other 100 ways combined and yet you want some sort of credibility? Any meaningful analysis of this tripe is dismissed in some robot like fashion that doesn't allow for the digestion of data because it shoots all kinds of holes in your theory. You take this weeks games as some sort testament to your theory despite the fact that matchups forced a certain outcome.You say "17 years worth of data" when it is well known that expecting Alex Smith to lead the 49ers to a SB championship in 2005 is an asinine data point to include. The exclusion of Elway, Simms, etc... just goes to show how far you will manipulate and stipulate your theory to arrive at your preconceived outcome.
stuckincincy Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 You can't throw the baby out with the bath water and NOT bite... 569371[/snapback] Quite a compendium. I admire your work ethic. Sure does seem if you didn't have to sell your soul to get a 1st round qb, they do help.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 17, 2006 Author Posted January 17, 2006 when you pull out ridiculous scenarios filled with all sorts of caveats - then expect to catch some crap. You narrowly specify one way to obtain a QB and say that isn't as successful as the other 100 ways combined and yet you want some sort of credibility? Any meaningful analysis of this tripe is dismissed in some robot like fashion that doesn't allow for the digestion of data because it shoots all kinds of holes in your theory. You take this weeks games as some sort testament to your theory despite the fact that matchups forced a certain outcome.You say "17 years worth of data" when it is well known that expecting Alex Smith to lead the 49ers to a SB championship in 2005 is an asinine data point to include. The exclusion of Elway, Simms, etc... just goes to show how far you will manipulate and stipulate your theory to arrive at your preconceived outcome. 571000[/snapback] 1. My post on this and most other topics is not about the vanity of alleged credibility. Credibitlity comes not from the virtual world but actually in the real world where since my lovely wife assurees me I have none I really am beyond hope anyway. As nice as the virtual world is and many kudos are deserved by you for the great work you have done leading the way in creating TSW, the opinions here are really worth the photons they are printed onn. 2. Rather than some fruitless search for credibility, my posts really are thinking this stuff through. Any reactions from folks to my admitted tripe are greatly appreciated because I do learn a lot reading this stuff, but simply by massinging it through my fevered mind while I pour out this unproofread stuff teaches and shows me a lot. 3. The thing which prompted this latest tirade was not that things were proved with some dead lock certainty, but as I think of making the conference finals as my arbitrary designation of a successful season, this weekends results are meaningful in the big picture. 4. The detailed argument over this QB nethod actually has little relevane as an arguing point. However, I think its true relevance to a Bills fan (al that really matters here in TSW land IMHO) is not in this arcane argument point but in its relevance to the state of the Bills: Namely: 1. Our horrible results since the SB era has been an over-focus by the Bills braintrust in the QB position to the detriment of a focus on building and producing with the full team. This has played a role in: A. A bad decision not try to find the replacement for Kelly at least a year if not two before his retirement. Unfortunately when it comes to ream-building all players are commodities and the over-ocus and worship of the QB did not allow us to take a more realistic view and actions. B. Rushing TC along which happens but one could feel the panic begin to set-in. C. Spending precious resources on a poor read of Billy Joe Idiot (the panic was in bloom). D. The RJ/DF debacle was the height of poor management and contracting. E.The foolish extension of Bledsoe. F. Rushing JP's development along and I fear sending a signal to the D and the vets that last season was really training and practice for TD in 06 so they mailed it in last year. 2. Occaisionally a situation will arise where some argue vehemently that the right move to make in the draft is go for a Harrington (who as one would expect given the history of non SB wins by 1st rounders has not only failed to be the player we wanted but been a virtual Mike Williams in quality. The results these two have shown indicate why trading down is the best strategy to pursue most years. 3. The Bills do you a 1st rounder on someone like a JP. I hope to all get out that in 06 he becomes the first 1st round QB choice since Aikman (unless RoboQB pulls it off this year) to lead rge team that chose him to an SB win. I doubt it based on past results but a guy can dream can't he. These too me are the important points leading freom this debate, rather than the vurtual trivia of whose wrong and whose wronger. The trivia though is a vauable conduit for considering these points and thats one of the reasons I have tried to express my thanks for the work and insights of folks like BINYC and Exiled on this issue. For other's it is merely a vehicle for toilet humor. That's fine, it says more about the responder and their mindset than it does about the value (if any) of the original post.
SDS Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 For other's it is merely a vehicle for toilet humor. That's fine, it says more about the responder and their mindset than it does about the value (if any) of the original post. 571216[/snapback] Not really. Toilet humor is what you get when you set up a self-serving proposition and you get called on it. Year after year after year. Since we are using simple statistical analysis to prove our opinions One fact that I know, and you can't tell me otherwise - churches cause crime. Look it up if you doubt me. As the density of churches increases in an area, so does the crime. I will not listen to, nor accept any explanation of this data point, since it is an observable fact. Lotsa churches. Lotsa crime. Direct correlation.
Buckeye Eric Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Namely that the last time a team drafted a QB in the 1st round who led that team to an SB victory wwould have been Dallas choosing Aikman in 1989. . At any rate, these are the results of the final 4 QB derby: Seahawks- Hasselback (originally drafted by Packers) Carolina- Delhomme (UDFA signing by NC) Steelers-RoboQB- (!st round pick by Pitts) Denver- Plummer- (orignially picked by AZ) The results were fairly typical of 1st Round drafted QBs for teams as one led the team which chose him to the conference championships (last year was actually a banner year for this method as 2 teams had these high priced guys leading them to the conference championships with McNabb being the first 1st round drafed QB to lead the team which chose him to an SB lose since McNair came close leading TN in 99. 569339[/snapback] It is good to see someone else mention this. Over the past 25 years Aikman is he only 1st Rd QB draft choice that won a SB for the team that drafted him. In fact, teams have a better chance of winning the SB with a 4th round or UFA QB than a 1st rounder they drafted.
Ramius Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Not really. Toilet humor is what you get when you set up a self-serving proposition and you get called on it. Year after year after year. Since we are using simple statistical analysis to prove our opinions One fact that I know, and you can't tell me otherwise - churches cause crime. Look it up if you doubt me. As the density of churches increases in an area, so does the crime. I will not listen to, nor accept any explanation of this data point, since it is an observable fact. Lotsa churches. Lotsa crime. Direct correlation. 571287[/snapback] Spinning off you, sds, i'll use FFS logic, and make the statement that eating ice cream causes drowning. Its a fact. Look at the statistics. When ice cream consumption goes up, so does the rate of drowning. Set in stone. Therefore, one should be careful not to drown while eating ice cream. Thats all for now. i am going into a corner to wonder whatever the bills will do, because we will obviously not win the Super Bowl while JP Losman is on the team, since he was a 1st rounder, and FFS decreed that 1st rounder QBs dont win SB's.
Ramius Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 It is good to see someone else mention this. Over the past 25 years Aikman is he only 1st Rd QB draft choice that won a SB for the team that drafted him. In fact, teams have a better chance of winning the SB with a 4th round or UFA QB than a 1st rounder they drafted. 571299[/snapback] Ok. Me and you will take the exact same team, missing a QB, and i'll draft QB's in the 1st round, and you draft them in the 4th round or later. We'll see whose team wins a SB first. Nevermind the FACT that only 3 of 64 QB's drafted in the 2nd to 7th rounds from 1999-2004 are starting in the NFL right now, while 12 of 18 1st rounder draftees are starting.
SDS Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 It is good to see someone else mention this. Over the past 25 years Aikman is he only 1st Rd QB draft choice that won a SB for the team that drafted him. In fact, teams have a better chance of winning the SB with a 4th round or UFA QB than a 1st rounder they drafted. 571299[/snapback] Does Jim McMahon or Phil Simms mean anything to you? Are you going to throw in the John Elway minor technicality that he was drafted then immediately traded? Because somehow, someone thinks that drafting a guy is different then trading for him a week after the draft...
Ramius Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Does Jim McMahon or Phil Simms mean anything to you? Are you going to throw in the John Elway minor technicality that he was drafted then immediately traded? Because somehow, someone thinks that drafting a guy is different then trading for him a week after the draft... 571333[/snapback] Obviously this means that we cant count Eli Manning in the future either for whatever he does, as he was drafted by the Chargers, not the giants...
SDS Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 Obviously this means that we cant count Eli Manning in the future either for whatever he does, as he was drafted by the Chargers, not the giants... 571336[/snapback] Well, Rivers is out too then... There probably is a pony in there somewhere. I think the real analysis is the % of cap money going to your starting QB position - regardless of draft position or how they were acquired. That may be worthwhile because there is a cause and effect there.
eball Posted January 17, 2006 Posted January 17, 2006 It is good to see someone else mention this. Over the past 25 years Aikman is he only 1st Rd QB draft choice that won a SB for the team that drafted him. In fact, teams have a better chance of winning the SB with a 4th round or UFA QB than a 1st rounder they drafted. 571299[/snapback] Nice. I get it, even if nobody else does.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 The last 17 years has been a statistical burp... And it takes about 5-7 years before a QB gets into postion... Aikman won about 10 years ago... McNair and McNabb were near misses... But, Brady won 3 times. Now throw in Delhomme and Warner and things really sway the "anti-1sters" to the "used car lot." Things will right themselves soon... Maybe Big Ben or Jake "The Snake" Plummer (he was 2nd round but, I consider that to be an extension of the 1st... ). See the data I posted. Yet, if Delhomme or Hasselback pull it off... It will have the "anti-1sters" running off to the used car lot and taking a pass on the "new" vehicles. Right up RW's alley! It reminds me, I gotta get back to that thread... Something about Fords and Mercedes got me thinking about those 1970's Ford Granada ads!
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 18, 2006 Posted January 18, 2006 Oh... And yes... I did use enough smilies in the above post!
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 18, 2006 Author Posted January 18, 2006 The last 17 years has been a statistical burp... And it takes about 5-7 years before a QB gets into postion... Aikman won about 10 years ago... McNair and McNabb were near misses... But, Brady won 3 times. Now throw in Delhomme and Warner and things really sway the "anti-1sters" to the "used car lot." Things will right themselves soon... Maybe Big Ben or Jake "The Snake" Plummer (he was 2nd round but, I consider that to be an extension of the 1st... ). See the data I posted. Yet, if Delhomme or Hasselback pull it off... It will have the "anti-1sters" running off to the used car lot and taking a pass on the "new" vehicles. Right up RW's alley! It reminds me, I gotta get back to that thread... Something about Fords and Mercedes got me thinking about those 1970's Ford Granada ads! 571978[/snapback] I understand the point, but one would think that as QBs were in fact drafted in the first round between 1989 and 1999 and 2001 (5-7 years ago) who would have filled the pipeline of QBs. Perhaps this 10-12 year period is where your statistical burp occurs. However, 1. Even given a 5-7 year time period for QB development (many are actually a lot shorter than this before productiveity actually so is true for many but seems a bit long) we're looking at a burp which may well be into 3 generations of QBs. The statistical burp is well on its way to a hearty belch. 2. Logical reasons actually point to the factors which feed this seemingly random event are getting more intense. A. 5-7 years is simply too long for QB development with the same team in this win now league. B. Given the standard 1st round contract length, a 5-7 year development period probably means you need to sign a second big contract before the QB develops into a producer. Your timeline happens in terms of eventual productvity but the Jake Plummer creer which fits your description is a bit more rare than the Todd Collins track and results. 3. The fact you can throw in a lot of exceptions to the draft a QB in the 1st (throw in Dilfer and Johnson with your mention of Warner, Brady, amd Delhomme and one begins to see non 1st round keepers are actually the normal occurence while no first round keeper has won the SB. Also, you mention Plummer as righting the ship of state, he actually is another high fraft pick QB who was chosen by AZ and trained by them and Denver know gets the benefit because rather than drafting him they saw they could buy him when he hit FA.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 18, 2006 Author Posted January 18, 2006 Ok. Me and you will take the exact same team, missing a QB, and i'll draft QB's in the 1st round, and you draft them in the 4th round or later. We'll see whose team wins a SB first. Nevermind the FACT that only 3 of 64 QB's drafted in the 2nd to 7th rounds from 1999-2004 are starting in the NFL right now, while 12 of 18 1st rounder draftees are starting. 571329[/snapback] I have not done the statistical analysis, but my sense is that your take on this is superficial to the extent that the real world measure in terms of building a team is an assessment of the cao hit of the intial contracts of these players. Brady was a brilliant pick-up not merely due to his great play, but that his initial contract was for the NFL minimum plus 50K. You might well lose the bet with someone with you taking a 1st and him taking a 4th or later, because your pick has to work or he ends up being a QB version for you of Mike Williams and your team is likely dead for years if he fails. Your opponent meanwhile will have the chance to not simply make one pick but at least two if not three QBs looking for the right one (and dealing with injury if your QB is a stud and gets Carson Palmer'ed. In the real world where picking a quality QB is essentially a crap shoot with the vast majprity of 1st round picks failing to play for the team that drafted them (if you are assessing my oresentation your 12 of 18 number should not just be of first rounders starting but first rounders starting with the team which drafted them). It's hard for me to see why folks seem to want to completely reject my point or somehow view it as having been shown to be wrong. All I am saying is that rather than looking for your QB of the future in a 1st round pick, the real world if the measure is SB wins or even berths in the SB is to buy your 1st rounder after he has been run out of town elsewhere rather than losing with him now.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 18, 2006 Author Posted January 18, 2006 Not really. Toilet humor is what you get when you set up a self-serving proposition and you get called on it. Year after year after year. Since we are using simple statistical analysis to prove our opinions One fact that I know, and you can't tell me otherwise - churches cause crime. Look it up if you doubt me. As the density of churches increases in an area, so does the crime. I will not listen to, nor accept any explanation of this data point, since it is an observable fact. Lotsa churches. Lotsa crime. Direct correlation. 571287[/snapback] My mistake, by toilet humour I meant jokes about feces. However if one oseas a litter bpx pr a pit one would not consider this toilet humour,
Recommended Posts