Cam Newton & Luke Keachly [Archive] - BillsZone.com

Mr. Pink

01-25-2016, 09:34 AM

I haven't liked plenty of their picks over the years, none of them really stand out to me as moments at that time where I thought they should have picked player x instead of player y, outside of the trade up for McCargo which I, and others, thought instantly was done to grab Mangold. Boy were we surprised and we would have been set at Center still if we made the right move.

There are guys like Korey Lichtensteiger and Mason Crosby who I thought the Bills should have picked up in mid to late rounds but that's all crapshoot anyway.

In the worthless wins category, a late season victory against the Jets cost the team Ben Roethlisberger. Ben was actually a guy the Donahoe led Bills were high on and was in a year where we taking the heir apparent to Bledsoe, as evidenced by the trade up to get Losman.

coastal

01-25-2016, 09:36 AM

Losman... lol.

Mike

01-25-2016, 09:40 AM

Why even bother looking back and thinking about this crap? It didn't happen, **** it. It is what it is.

I only bring this up becuase, in just about every season of past 15 years, Bills find a way to Win those meaningless games and the Fans root for those meaningless wins sighting things like 'winning culture'

I bring this up because chances are the Bills will be in this same position next season or season after and like clockwork we will miss out on the next Cam, or Luke or Big Ben.

I bring this up so you see that it does make a difference. A win or 2 has NOT improved the Culture and turned this team into a Winner but it has Cost us opportunity to get great players.

Mike

01-25-2016, 09:45 AM

When the Bills started 0-8, I thought we could get Newton. Then the team won 4 totally meaningless games and the fans felt so good because after every one of those 4 wins they celebrated wildly and went to work happy on Monday. Those 4 wins were fantastic and if you ask the fans who loved every moment of those 4 wins they'd tell you they wouldn't trade a single one for the opportunity to be in the Super Bowl 5 years later because the feeling after each win was so darn good.

most Bills fans are short sighted
and so unwilling to give up a meaningless win
I call it pride

i always thought the goal was to win the SB not some meaningless game that's the equivalence of a preseason contest

Historian

01-25-2016, 09:47 AM

I'm glad I got to see them both when they played here in 2013

Bill Cody

01-25-2016, 01:11 PM

This post makes it sound like everyone this site would have been thrilled if we picked Cam. The fact is very very few on this site wanted him and quite a few were very strong that he would be a bust. I was straddling the fence a bit, said I was in if the scouts were, that his measurables were off the charts, just wanted to be sure he had the head for the game. He was pretty raw early but has just continued to progress and now he's the league MVP. At the time it was not at all clear Carolina was going to take him which was why there was a ton of conversation about what to do if he fell to 4.

Joe Fo Sho

01-25-2016, 01:34 PM

most Bills fans are short sighted
and so unwilling to give up a meaningless win
I call it pride

i always thought the goal was to win the SB not some meaningless game that's the equivalence of a preseason contest

How does this affect the outcome of the meaningless game? If I root for the Bills to win, are the players going to try harder?

Goobylal

01-25-2016, 01:36 PM

Newton was the first overall and the Bills had no chance at him by trading up. Kuechly they just missed out on but got Gilmore instead.

Pinkerton Security

01-25-2016, 02:08 PM

Seriously? There have been so many players between 2011 and now that if we had drafted them, we would be a much better team. That can be said about every single team in the NFL. Just stop.

Mace

01-25-2016, 05:52 PM

Why even bother looking back and thinking about this crap? It didn't happen, **** it. It is what it is.

Yeah, and even if we'd have gotten them, no telling we'd have developed or used them right anyway. No point in thinking about it.

DynaPaul

01-25-2016, 09:07 PM

Still not buying Superman's stock.

DesertFox24

01-26-2016, 03:33 PM

Torell Troup. Now that's one you can really look back and be mad about, not this "well if we would have lost more games we could have had _______" crap

Troup was an injury issue, other than that he was not a bad player. I will give you had he been healthy I do not think he would have been a pro bowler but I think he would have been a very good starting caliber NT.

You guys want to play this game. We took Leif Larson one pick before Tom Brady. leif Larson was a wrestler at UTEP and only played football for one year. We also had a QB need as well.

You can play this stupid game all day long in every draft, move on.

MillsapsBillsFan

01-27-2016, 05:51 AM

Troup was an injury issue, other than that he was not a bad player. I will give you had he been healthy I do not think he would have been a pro bowler but I think he would have been a very good starting caliber NT.

You guys want to play this game. We took Leif Larson one pick before Tom Brady. leif Larson was a wrestler at UTEP and only played football for one year. We also had a QB need as well.

You can play this stupid game all day long in every draft, move on.

I never had a problem with the Troup pick. I liked him and I know he would have been solid without injuries. The only reason that pick upsets me (and that's the only one that I look back and say "what if" on) is because 1) I had wanted Gronk the whole season and 2) Troup was a 3rd rounder at best in my mind (coming from someone who watched a lot of UCF games).
But
I understand that every team in the NFL can play this game, and I do think its interesting. But other than that one instance ive gotten over all of the "we could have had" games, just that one still gets me.

IlluminatusUIUC

01-27-2016, 08:28 AM

IlluminatusUIUC

01-27-2016, 08:29 AM

I never had a problem with the Troup pick. I liked him and I know he would have been solid without injuries. The only reason that pick upsets me (and that's the only one that I look back and say "what if" on) is because 1) I had wanted Gronk the whole season and 2) Troup was a 3rd rounder at best in my mind (coming from someone who watched a lot of UCF games).
But
I understand that every team in the NFL can play this game, and I do think its interesting. But other than that one instance ive gotten over all of the "we could have had" games, just that one still gets me.

It burns me more because Gronk is a local boy, and he's on my most hated team.

MillsapsBillsFan

01-27-2016, 11:45 AM

You'd have a better argument if those picks had busted, but we got Dareus and Gilmore in the years we missed Newton and Kuechly. I'd focus more on the players we had the chance to draft and passed on (Gronk, Wilson, Earl Thomas, Iupati, etc)

Agreed with that, no point in getting upset about good picks that possibly could have been better. If you want to get upset about our picks you can go back to 2009 and see what we did there, then you may have more of a point (though it still wouldn't matter)

trapezeus

01-27-2016, 12:12 PM

don137

01-27-2016, 07:28 PM

If Andrew Luck decided to come out instead of staying for his senior year than the Panthers would of taken Luck over Newton. Very likely Newton would of been there at #3 for Buffalo.

Mace

01-27-2016, 07:37 PM

two things:
1. the OP shows that the late season wins hurt. in a season that is lost, winning two at the end does not build a culture. see 16 non playoff seasons. when you have a lost season, you have to finish taking the medicine and bottom out and lose. especially on teams where they aren't going to be building around the core people they have.

See, I just can't agree with that. Good scouting and good coaching delivers the goods. You have plenty of good teams that remain good and always get crap picks, and plenty of middling teams that get better, flailing around with core guys until they find them, or build better organizations.

Some teams have consistently good picks and blow them, remaining bad (see Cleveland). Some teams remain consistently middlin'.

Tanking is junk, all your team learns is how to tank. Does losing two at the end build a culture ? Of what, how to lose ? You do better with the picks you have, and viola ! You have a core to build a new culture. Then what, tell them to lose ? Need more core. Great culture.

No.

Joe Fo Sho

01-28-2016, 08:00 AM

SpikedLemonade

01-28-2016, 08:17 AM

Tanking is junk, all your team learns is how to tank. Does losing two at the end build a culture ? Of what, how to lose ? You do better with the picks you have, and viola ! You have a core to build a new culture. Then what, tell them to lose ? Need more core. Great culture.

No.

I guess you are not a Sabres fan.

Bill Cody

01-28-2016, 10:26 AM

See, I just can't agree with that. Good scouting and good coaching delivers the goods. You have plenty of good teams that remain good and always get crap picks, and plenty of middling teams that get better, flailing around with core guys until they find them, or build better organizations.

Some teams have consistently good picks and blow them, remaining bad (see Cleveland). Some teams remain consistently middlin'.

Tanking is junk, all your team learns is how to tank. Does losing two at the end build a culture ? Of what, how to lose ? You do better with the picks you have, and viola ! You have a core to build a new culture. Then what, tell them to lose ? Need more core. Great culture.

No.

I agree with this generally but not if you're looking for a QB and an extra couple wins keeps you from getting your guy. You can have more culture than a museum curator and it still gets you nowhere in the NFL without a great QB. Not sold TT is that guy.

stuckincincy

01-28-2016, 11:51 AM

Newton tosses out the race card...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_29440206/cam-newton-im-an-african-american-qb-that-scares-people

Mr. Pink

01-28-2016, 02:17 PM

In the last 12 years, the Browns have picked in the top 10 9 times, 6 of those times being the 6th pick or better. Would you rather be in their shoes right now?

The Rams have had the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft 5 out of the last 8 years. How's that worked out for them?

Browns were in the playoffs in 2002, Rams were in the playoffs in 2004.

I'd rather be in either of those teams' shoes.

8-8 vs 5-11 vs 3-13 doesn't matter, you're staying home regardless. Those teams have played meaningful football games in January more recently than the Bills, therefore their spots are better.

Joe Fo Sho

01-28-2016, 02:39 PM

Browns were in the playoffs in 2002, Rams were in the playoffs in 2004.

I'd rather be in either of those teams' shoes.

8-8 vs 5-11 vs 3-13 doesn't matter, you're staying home regardless. Those teams have played meaningful football games in January more recently than the Bills, therefore their spots are better.

I'll take 8-8 over 3-13 every time. There is a lot more that goes into building a successful football team than who you get with one draft pick.

Mike

01-28-2016, 06:45 PM

Seriously? There have been so many players between 2011 and now that if we had drafted them, we would be a much better team. That can be said about every single team in the NFL. Just stop.

Your missing the point of the thread entirely

- The point is NOT that we could have drafted better.

*The point is that winning meaningless games hurts you more than it helps you

Mike

01-28-2016, 06:51 PM

I'll take 8-8 over 3-13 every time. There is a lot more that goes into building a successful football team than who you get with one draft pick.

Every time?

You would take the 2012 Bills who finished 8-8 over the 2-14 Colts who 'won' the 1st overall pick and the Luck Sweepstakes.

(PS: with the exception of this injury year, Luck has taken the Colts to the playoff every year compared to the Bills who haven't even sniffed the playoffs in last 15 years.)

Who do you think will win a SB first?

Mike

01-28-2016, 07:02 PM

You'd have a better argument if those picks had busted, but we got Dareus and Gilmore in the years we missed Newton and Kuechly. I'd focus more on the players we had the chance to draft and passed on (Gronk, Wilson, Earl Thomas, Iupati, etc)

Again the thread isn't about what could have been

It's about a simple premise that winning meaningless games doesn't help you build culture and that it actually hurts you far more than it helps you.

I am assuming that as a fan you want to see the Bills win a SB not improve on their all time .487 winning percentage.... As a result:

In a QB dominated league it's much better to have the opportunity to draft a 'franchise QB' than to have a playoff team with an average QB.

Average QBs don't win SBs.

IlluminatusUIUC

01-28-2016, 08:21 PM

Again the thread isn't about what could have been

It's about a simple premise that winning meaningless games doesn't help you build culture and that it actually hurts you far more than it helps you.

I am assuming that as a fan you want to see the Bills win a SB not improve on their all time .487 winning percentage.... As a result:

In a QB dominated league it's much better to have the opportunity to draft a 'franchise QB' than to have a playoff team with an average QB.

Average QBs don't win SBs.

5 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by QBs we could have drafted or signed in free agency but passed on. I agree that having a franchise QB is essential but I don't agree that cratering every season until you find one is a sensible strategy. You need to make an effort to find one, something the Bills have been neglecting for years.

Also, if this thread is suddenly about QBs alone then why are we upset about missing Kuechly?

Joe Fo Sho

01-29-2016, 07:56 AM

Every time?

Every time.

You would take the 2012 Bills who finished 8-8 over the 2-14 Colts who 'won' the 1st overall pick and the Luck Sweepstakes.

Yup. For every Luck, there's a Tim Couch or two. One single draft pick does not make or break a team.

(PS: with the exception of this injury year, Luck has taken the Colts to the playoff every year compared to the Bills who haven't even sniffed the playoffs in last 15 years.)

*16 years

Who do you think will win a SB first?

The following teams have had the 1st overall pick in the last 15 years.

Tampa Bay
Houston
Kansas City
Indianapolis
Carolina
St. Louis
Detroit
Miami
Oakland
Houston again
San Francisco
San Diego
Cincinnati
Houston yet again
Atlanta (From San Diego)

Man, look at that list of juggernauts. 2 whole Super Bowl appearances in the bunch, 0 Championships.

IlluminatusUIUC

01-29-2016, 09:01 AM

Man, look at that list of juggernauts. 2 whole Super Bowl appearances in the bunch, 0 Championships.

And San Francisco wasn't taken to the Super Bowl by the guy they drafted #1 overall. The QB that did get them there was drafted in the second round, only a few picks after we took a safety.

Joe Fo Sho

01-29-2016, 09:08 AM

*The point is that winning meaningless games hurts you more than it helps you

The Texans won 2 meaningless games week 16 and 17 in 2014, they got to the playoffs in 2015.

The Redskins won a meaningless game week 16 in 2014, they got to the playoffs in 2015.

The Vikings won a meaningless game week 17 in 2014, they got the playoffs in 2015.

Those are 3 examples of teams winning meaningless games then making the playoffs the following year, that's just looking at this year and last. 25 percent of playoff teams this year won meaningless games last year.

Joe Fo Sho

01-29-2016, 09:29 AM

And San Francisco wasn't taken to the Super Bowl by the guy they drafted #1 overall. The QB that did get them there was drafted in the second round, only a few picks after we took a safety.

Good point, Alex Smith was on the bench watching a 2nd round pick take his team to the Super Bowl. Let's look at QB draft positions of recent superbowl victors, going back to 2000.

6th Round
3rd Round
1st Round (Pick 18)
1st Round (Pick 1) <--- Eli (Not drafted by Giants)
1st Round (Pick 24)
2nd Round
1st Round (Pick 11)
1st Round (Pick 1) <--- Eli (Not drafted by Giants)
1st Round (Pick 1) <--- Peyton
1st Round (Pick 11)
6th Round
6th Round
9th Round
6th Round
1st Round (Pick 6)
Undrafted

One player that was the top pick won a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him over the last 16 years. 75% of Super Bowls in that span have been won by QBs that were drafted outside of the top 10, and 50% weren't even 1st round picks.

Maybe we should be complaining about not trading up for the players that you want us to draft, like the Giants did. The Giants lost the last 8 games of the 2003 season and STILL weren't in position to get the guy they wanted.

I'm a firm believer that it's not where you draft, it's who you draft.

Mace

01-29-2016, 04:19 PM

All I can say in regard to tanking, from my personal perspective, is that it carries a stench.

Means to an end ? Well, depends on your ethics and principles but they aren't mine. Like, what's the difference between cheating, to lose, to win.....and cheating to win without the middle steps. Criticize one, you have to criticize both.

Building a team while trying to win isn't quaint and old fashioned, it's simply attempting to follow the rules to succeed instead of cheating to do it, trying to win to succeed, instead of the warped try to lose to succeed mindset.

I mean I can accept that some people are shameless. I often post with a shameless persona, which sort of speaks for itself with some of my tales. But I've never in my life lost on purpose in a relatively even contest (I lose games repeatedly to little kids with the most remarkable mistakes), because it's not even respectful to the contest or the opponent, to the effort or to the purpose.

The tanking mentality is just contemptible to me, and I'm not meaning to insult posters, but the concept of it that desperate, otherwise normally reasonable people can talk themselves into embracing, well, because they are that desperate to want to cheat.

Even if Indy tanked to get Luck, and I still don't think they did, that team was just carried on Peyton's arm (look how Caldwell is doing as an HC without him), they're still stuck being feeble. Sabres did it, have some great talent, are still feeble. Cleveland Browns and Edmonton Oilers don't do it on purpose, are still going nowhere quick. But we'll somehow be the ones to do something wrong right, if we can't even do right properly ?

Ohhhh, if we had only stunk a little worse.....

No thank you, for me.

Mace

01-29-2016, 04:22 PM

I guess you are not a Sabres fan.

Heh. My interest in hockey was on the rise for a while, and getting stronger again....the tank pretty much soiled it and made me apathetic again.

YardRat

01-29-2016, 04:30 PM

Buffalo's problem hasn't been refusing to tank to get a better draft pick to acquire a QB, it's the lack of emphasis on consistently trying to get one to even take a chance on. You can't hit the lottery if you don't buy a ticket.

feldspar

01-29-2016, 06:10 PM

Good point, Alex Smith was on the bench watching a 2nd round pick take his team to the Super Bowl. Let's look at QB draft positions of recent superbowl victors, going back to 2000.

6th Round
3rd Round
1st Round (Pick 18)
1st Round (Pick 1) <--- Eli (Not drafted by Giants)
1st Round (Pick 24)
2nd Round
1st Round (Pick 11)
1st Round (Pick 1) <--- Eli (Not drafted by Giants)
1st Round (Pick 1) <--- Peyton
1st Round (Pick 11)
6th Round
6th Round
9th Round
6th Round
1st Round (Pick 6)
Undrafted

One player that was the top pick won a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him over the last 16 years. 75% of Super Bowls in that span have been won by QBs that were drafted outside of the top 10, and 50% weren't even 1st round picks.

Maybe we should be complaining about not trading up for the players that you want us to draft, like the Giants did. The Giants lost the last 8 games of the 2003 season and STILL weren't in position to get the guy they wanted.

I'm a firm believer that it's not where you draft, it's who you draft.

Take Tom Brady off that list, and it looks not so convincing.

Since 2000, the only QB not picked in the first round who won the Super Bowl with the team that drafted him other than Brady was Russell Wilson.

We are talking about the draft, right?

The other ones are Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson...we aren't going to use those guys as examples too much, are we? Their original teams that drafted them cut them loose, anyway. Drew Brees was picked 32nd, so that's borderline first-round...don't remember who didn't pick that year, or whatever happened. But the Chargers were the ones that drafted him, anyway, and he won with the Saints. Kurt Warner actually won the Super Bowl in the 1999 season, and he played well enough to win two more...his story might be crazier than Tom Brady's.

Not that I don't agree with your original premise. ;) I do.

But the trend seems to be that you draft a QB in the first round, or you a acquire one from a different team somehow; otherwise, you have to just plain get lucky. How many QBs have we we seen come and go since Kelly? Plenty. We haven't been lucky like the couple of other teams. That's all there is too it.

Joe Fo Sho

01-29-2016, 06:54 PM

Take Tom Brady off that list, and it looks not so convincing.

Since 2000, the only QB not picked in the first round who won the Super Bowl with the team that drafted him other than Brady was Russell Wilson.

We are talking about the draft, right?

The other ones are Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson...we aren't going to use those guys as examples too much, are we? Their original teams that drafted them cut them loose, anyway. Drew Brees was picked 32nd, so that's borderline first-round...don't remember who didn't pick that year, or whatever happened. But the Chargers were the ones that drafted him, anyway, and he won with the Saints. Kurt Warner actually won the Super Bowl in the 1999 season, and he played well enough to win two more...his story might be crazier than Tom Brady's.

Not that I don't agree with your original premise. ;) I do.

But the trend seems to be that you draft a QB in the first round, or you a acquire one from a different team somehow; otherwise, you have to just plain get lucky. How many QBs have we we seen come and go since Kelly? Plenty. We haven't been lucky like the couple of other teams. That's all there is too it.

I completely agree. I'm not saying that 1st round QBs aren't worth drafting, I'm just disagreeing with the premise of this thread, which is trying to argue that we should be losing meaningless games.

Take Tom Brady off that list

Nothing would make me happier than being able to take Tom Brady off of the list of Super Bowl victors.

Mike

01-31-2016, 02:10 AM

5 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by QBs we could have drafted or signed in free agency but passed on. I agree that having a franchise QB is essential but I don't agree that cratering every season until you find one is a sensible strategy. You need to make an effort to find one, something the Bills have been neglecting for years.

Also, if this thread is suddenly about QBs alone then why are we upset about missing Kuechly?

Your throwing up a Staw Man Argument

every team ram could have drafted better and would have taken Tom Brady or Russel Wilson knowing what we know.

Knowing what we know,
We know for Sure, 100%, the Bills would be significantly better had we not Won some Meaningless Games

Drafting Big Ben.... Case in point
Instead we settled for JP

I get it that fans here enjoy going 8-8 over 7-9 and wouldn't give that win up for the next Dan Marino but personally I would.

Playoff bound teams do it regularly.
They rest starters on week 17 because the costs > benefits

Mike

01-31-2016, 02:15 AM

Mike

01-31-2016, 02:24 AM

Every time.

Yup. For every Luck, there's a Tim Couch or two. One single draft pick does not make or break a team.

*16 years

The following teams have had the 1st overall pick in the last 15 years.

Tampa Bay
Houston
Kansas City
Indianapolis
Carolina
St. Louis
Detroit
Miami
Oakland
Houston again
San Francisco
San Diego
Cincinnati
Houston yet again
Atlanta (From San Diego)

Man, look at that list of juggernauts. 2 whole Super Bowl appearances in the bunch, 0 Championships.

Each of those teams had made the Playoff!!!
Every Single one of them
Something the Bills haven't done during this same span.

How Many of these Teams Have a Brighter Future?
Colts, Bangles, Atlanta, Oakland, Miami, Detroit, Panthers, Bucs, KC, Titans, Houston,
Toss Ups: SF, LA

Mike

01-31-2016, 02:31 AM

The Texans won 2 meaningless games week 16 and 17 in 2014, they got to the playoffs in 2015.

The Redskins won a meaningless game week 16 in 2014, they got to the playoffs in 2015.

The Vikings won a meaningless game week 17 in 2014, they got the playoffs in 2015.

Those are 3 examples of teams winning meaningless games then making the playoffs the following year, that's just looking at this year and last. 25 percent of playoff teams this year won meaningless games last year.

Your confusing Correlation with Causation

Bills have been winning meaningless games for 16 years and haven't made the playoffs once.

YardRat

01-31-2016, 04:06 AM

I think one of the most important reasons this team needs to finally make the playoffs is so that we might be able to have an off-season that doesn't include 'meaningless win' and 'we could have had ABCD QB' threads.

Joe Fo Sho

01-31-2016, 09:31 AM

How Many of these Teams Have a Brighter Future?
Colts, Bangles, Atlanta, Oakland, Miami, Detroit, Panthers, Bucs, KC, Titans, Houston,
Toss Ups: SF, LA

That's a debatable list if I've ever seen one.

Your confusing Correlation with Causation

Bills have been winning meaningless games for 16 years and haven't made the playoffs once.

Who are you trying to convince that we should lose 'meaningless' games and why?

IlluminatusUIUC

01-31-2016, 09:57 AM

Your throwing up a Staw Man Argument

every team ram could have drafted better and would have taken Tom Brady or Russel Wilson knowing what we know.

Knowing what we know,
We know for Sure, 100%, the Bills would be significantly better had we not Won some Meaningless Games

Drafting Big Ben.... Case in point
Instead we settled for JP

I get it that fans here enjoy going 8-8 over 7-9 and wouldn't give that win up for the next Dan Marino but personally I would.

Why is your hindsight argument that you'd rather lose games somehow valid but my hindsight argument that we have had shots at multiple franchise QBs anyway somehow invalid?

I mean, I don't see you in here lamenting that we didn't tank to grab Sam Bradford or Mark Sanchez.

You don't need to tank the end of the season to get a franchise QB, you need to take opportunities where they arise and you need to try more then once a decade.

Look at 2003, the example you keep citing.

The Bills went 4-4 in the first half of the season and finished 2-6
The Steelers went 2-6 in the first half of the season and finished 4-4, with their week 17 game going into OT.

Even in your own prime example, the team that finished out the season stronger got the player they wanted.

Playoff bound teams do it regularly.
They rest starters on week 17 because the costs > benefits

Resting starters to protect them for a playoff run is a different strategy entirely.

Luisito23

01-31-2016, 10:37 AM

How Many of these Teams Have a Brighter Future?
Colts, Bangles, Atlanta, Oakland, Miami, Detroit, Panthers, Bucs, KC, Titans, Houston,
Toss Ups: SF, LA

:lol:

Mike

01-31-2016, 03:29 PM

Why is your hindsight argument that you'd rather lose games somehow valid but my hindsight argument that we have had shots at multiple franchise QBs anyway somehow invalid?

> It's NOT a hindsight argument. It's simple logic. The Benefit of winning meaningless games doesn't yield a benefit but *can yield a Loss. You might lose one of your top players to injury, you probably will cost yourself draft position, etc.

I mean, I don't see you in here lamenting that we didn't tank to grab Sam Bradford or Mark Sanchez.

> In some Years it makes MORE sense to Lose meaningless games than other seasons. Just ask the Colts & the Sabres.
- other years it makes less sense. Once a Generation Prospects like Luck, Manning, McDavid, Crosby, etc... Offer great Upside at low cost

> Probability is a key word here. With better draft position you increase your Probability of getting a top QB prospect. This is a QB dominated league and that extra % odds % make a difference.

Imagine if you have a 10% advantage at a coin flip for 7 rounds, isn't that a much better position?

You don't need to tank the end of the season to get a franchise QB, you need to take opportunities where they arise and you need to try more then once a decade.

> You don't *need to tank but it IMPROVES YOUR ODDS
These ODD are Dramatic:

Winning Super Bowl quarterbacks have been drafted in the first round 55.3 percent of the time (29.8 percent with the first overall pick).

= 1st Overall QB picks have won 30% of Super Bowls!

> No one is talking about purposefully tanking a season. After a team is eliminated from playoffs the remainder of their games have as much importance as a preseason game. Would you argue that we win all of our preseason games if it cost us something like draft position?

Look at 2003, the example you keep citing.

The Bills went 4-4 in the first half of the season and finished 2-6
The Steelers went 2-6 in the first half of the season and finished 4-4, with their week 17 game going into OT.

Even in your own prime example, the team that finished out the season stronger got the player they wanted.

> if you could go back would you prefer the Bills go 1-7 at end or 2-6?
> if your a Chragers fan, 1 game - in a lost season- was the difference between Manning & Leaf
= Your Take Away here is that Odds Matter and that its in your advantage to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible

Resting starters to protect them for a playoff run is a different strategy entirely.
> In many ways it's the same thing. Your playing a cost benefit analysis that the *risk of injury alone isn't worth the benefit of a meaningless win.

> Your argument is that of a passionate fan trying to win every last inch... As if it means something.

Mike

01-31-2016, 03:35 PM

:lol:

Laughing at other teams is bit rediculous don't you think?

Right now the Bills are the laughingstock of the century
Only playoff less team of last 16 years

- In a parity league with FA and Salery Cap this is unheard of -

Joe Fo Sho

01-31-2016, 03:51 PM

Laughing at other teams is bit rediculous don't you think?

Right now the Bills are the laughingstock of the century
Only playoff less team of last 16 years

- In a parity league with FA and Salery Cap this is unheard of -

How can all of those teams you listed have a better future than the Bills? The Colts, Falcons, Raiders, Dolphins, Lions, Titans, 49ers, and Rams all won meaningless games this year, thus crippling their long term future like you stated when you started this thread. Or does that logic only apply to the Bills?

Mike

01-31-2016, 04:04 PM

How can all of those teams you listed have a better future than the Bills? The Colts, Falcons, Raiders, Dolphins, Lions, Titans, 49ers, and Rams all won meaningless games this year, thus crippling their long term future like you stated when you started this thread. Or does that logic only apply to the Bills?

You like putting words in my mouth than knocking them down...

You lost all credibility when you said your unwilling to lose 1 meaningless game for a HOF QB.

You litteraly wouldn't trade that week 17 win vs Jets for Aaron Rodgers.

Mace

01-31-2016, 04:22 PM

No One is talking about a tank job.

If a team is eliminated from playoffs in week 14 is it better to win last 2 meaningless games or get better draft picks?

Well, isn't losing on purpose "tanking" ? I mean if you want to call it "losing on purpose" instead, that's fine, but it's the same thing.

YardRat

01-31-2016, 04:24 PM

You like putting words in my mouth than knocking them down...

You lost all credibility when you said your unwilling to lose 1 meaningless game for a HOF QB.

You litteraly wouldn't trade that week 17 win vs Jets for Aaron Rodgers.

We didn't even have a first round pick in 2005, it was traded to Dallas the year prior to move back into the first to grab JP Losman.

The prior year, '04, was the year the team lost to Pittsburgh's JV's and cost them a playoff spot.

We 'literally' didn't have a realistic shot at drafting AR once the trade for JP was consummated.

Mike

01-31-2016, 04:45 PM

Well, isn't losing on purpose "tanking" ? I mean if you want to call it "losing on purpose" instead, that's fine, but it's the same thing.

Tanking is what the Sabres have been doing last few seasons and what they did to draft Eichel
It was blatant and a strategy from the start of the season.

Losing meaningless games isn't the same thing because you fought for it and ended up getting eliminated from
playoff contention in say week 14.

That means your last 3 weeks are as good as exhibition games, as meaningful as the preseason.

I don't know about you, but I don't lose sleep when bills lose in the preseason.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take 3 steps forward

Mike

01-31-2016, 04:50 PM

We didn't even have a first round pick in 2005, it was traded to Dallas the year prior to move back into the first to grab JP Losman.

The prior year, '04, was the year the team lost to Pittsburgh's JV's and cost them a playoff spot.

We 'literally' didn't have a realistic shot at drafting AR once the trade for JP was consummated.

I alluded to earlier conversation which I
asked him point blank,
'would you trade records with 2012 Colts (4 wins) and instead have Luck'?. He said NO under no circumstances would he lose even 1 meaningless game even if it meant getting a Dan Marino, an Elway, or Rodgers or any HOF QB.

Would you trade 4 losses for Luck?

YardRat

01-31-2016, 04:54 PM

I alluded to earlier conversation which I
asked him point blank,
'would you trade records with 2012 Colts (4 wins) and instead have Luck'?. He said NO under no circumstances would he lose even 1 meaningless game even if it meant getting a Dan Marino, an Elway, or Rodgers or any HOF QB.

Would you trade 4 losses for Luck?

I don't care about your earlier comment, the one I quoted was factually incorrect on more than one point.

Would you trade any amount of losses for any QB this season?

Hindsight is 20-20, let's have a little test of your ability to predict the future, and scouting skills.

Mike

01-31-2016, 05:00 PM

I don't care about your earlier comment, the one I quoted was factually incorrect on more than one point.

Would you trade any amount of losses for any QB this season?

Hindsight is 20-20, let's have a little test of your ability to predict the future, and scouting skills.

Your running away from the question

Would you trade 1 Meaningless loss for Aaron Rodgers?

PS: in case you didn't realize this is a hypothetical and not a factual situation

Would you?

IlluminatusUIUC

01-31-2016, 05:27 PM

It's NOT a hindsight argument. It's simple logic. The Benefit of winning meaningless games doesn't yield a benefit but *can yield a Loss. You might lose one of your top players to injury, you probably will cost yourself draft position, etc.

It absolutely is a hindsight argument. That's why I brought up Sanchez and Bradford and why you keep asking whether someone would "trade one win for Aaron Rodgers." You aren't moaning that we won too many games to draft Sanchez because you know that he busted and Newton didn't.

In some Years it makes MORE sense to Lose meaningless games than other seasons. Just ask the Colts & the Sabres.
- other years it makes less sense. Once a Generation Prospects like Luck, Manning, McDavid, Crosby, etc... Offer great Upside at low cost

So who are the once in a generation, can't miss QBs in this draft? Newton and Rodgers certainly weren't considered that coming out. Rodgers fell to the end of the first and Newton was one of the most contentious first overall picks ever.

No one is talking about purposefully tanking a season. After a team is eliminated from playoffs the remainder of their games have as much importance as a preseason game. Would you argue that we win all of our preseason games if it cost us something like draft position?

You are throwing up examples of situations where we weren't eliminated from the playoffs yet. The Bills were 4-4 at the halfway mark in 2003. You want us to pack it in at .500?

if you could go back would you prefer the Bills go 1-7 at end or 2-6?
if your a Chragers fan, 1 game - in a lost season- was the difference between Manning & Leaf
= Your Take Away here is that Odds Matter and that its in your advantage to stack the odds in your favor as much as possible

If you are a Chargers fan, you also had Drew Brees in the building for a 2nd rounder and still got nearly Hall of Fame play for a decade from Rivers.

In many ways it's the same thing. Your playing a cost benefit analysis that the *risk of injury alone isn't worth the benefit of a meaningless win.

The benefit is direct and immediate - a healthy team going into the playoffs.

Your argument is that of a passionate fan trying to win every last inch... As if it means something.

You litteraly wouldn't trade that week 17 win vs Jets for Aaron Rodgers.

My argument is of a fan who enjoys watching my team win football games. Knocking our division rival out of the playoffs was sweet. You are willing to trade that for the maybe marginally higher chance of getting a QB who might be good, or might be a bust. How many wins would you trade to get EJ Manuel?

YardRat

01-31-2016, 05:29 PM

Your running away from the question

Would you trade 1 Meaningless loss for Aaron Rodgers?

PS: in case you didn't realize this is a hypothetical and not a factual situation

Would you?

You're asking a bull**** question, one meaningless loss would not have garnered an opportunity for the Bills to draft Rodgers. The real question is who would you intentionally lose for in order to draft them this year?

Mace

01-31-2016, 05:37 PM

Tanking is what the Sabres have been doing last few seasons and what they did to draft Eichel
It was blatant and a strategy from the start of the season.

Losing meaningless games isn't the same thing because you fought for it and ended up getting eliminated from
playoff contention in say week 14.

That means your last 3 weeks are as good as exhibition games, as meaningful as the preseason.

I don't know about you, but I don't lose sleep when bills lose in the preseason.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take 3 steps forward

Tanking is losing on purpose. Can be a season, a game, a half, a final play. So how could I feel bad about them winning and not losing on purpose ? It's just my mindset. Cheating is cheating.

Sports would become a farce with multiple teams trying not to win and playing one another. The preseason is the preseason.

Sometimes you take 3 steps back and don't go forward. Edmonton, Cleveland, and they aren't even on purpose. Is that how you do your job ? Fail, to succeed ? Make mistakes so HR gives you better hires because your dept is woeful ? Boast about it to peers, my dept sucked so bad we got the best college kid ! Oh, I think I'll misuse a bunch of tools because maybe they'll get me better ones.

So the better part of the league tanks the last few weeks and makes them preseason games. Oh that makes a lot of sense. Or do you mean only us because we're special ? What if other teams lose better on purpose, we need try harder ?

Come on.

Joe Fo Sho

01-31-2016, 06:57 PM

You like putting words in my mouth than knocking them down...

You lost all credibility when you said your unwilling to lose 1 meaningless game for a HOF QB.

You litteraly wouldn't trade that week 17 win vs Jets for Aaron Rodgers.

I 'literally' never said that. It's 'literally' a stupid thing to ask somebody, as I doubt you'd let anyone use your magic time machine to go back and do that. Maybe you 'literally' don't understand what I'm saying.

You could have just said that your logic only applies to the Bills.

You never answered my question as to who you're trying to convince to lose these games and why you're trying to convince them.

Mike

02-01-2016, 06:10 AM

You're asking a bull**** question, one meaningless loss would not have garnered an opportunity for the Bills to draft Rodgers. The real question is who would you intentionally lose for in order to draft them this year?

You need to look up the word 'hypothetical'.

In a hypothetical situation would you throw a few meaningless games for Aaron Rodgers?

Mike

02-01-2016, 06:13 AM

I 'literally' never said that. It's 'literally' a stupid thing to ask somebody, as I doubt you'd let anyone use your magic time machine to go back and do that. Maybe you 'literally' don't understand what I'm saying.

You could have just said that your logic only applies to the Bills.

You never answered my question as to who you're trying to convince to lose these games and why you're trying to convince them.

You did say it.
You said that:
Knowing what you know today, you would not trade records with the Colts and have Luck on your team. You said you would never do it.... Never trade a few meaningless wins for Luck

Mike

02-01-2016, 06:18 AM

Tanking is losing on purpose. Can be a season, a game, a half, a final play. So how could I feel bad about them winning and not losing on purpose ? It's just my mindset. Cheating is cheating.

Sports would become a farce with multiple teams trying not to win and playing one another. The preseason is the preseason.

Sometimes you take 3 steps back and don't go forward. Edmonton, Cleveland, and they aren't even on purpose. Is that how you do your job ? Fail, to succeed ? Make mistakes so HR gives you better hires because your dept is woeful ? Boast about it to peers, my dept sucked so bad we got the best college kid ! Oh, I think I'll misuse a bunch of tools because maybe they'll get me better ones.

So the better part of the league tanks the last few weeks and makes them preseason games. Oh that makes a lot of sense. Or do you mean only us because we're special ? What if other teams lose better on purpose, we need try harder ?

Come on.

Your arguing from the point of view of 'integrity of the game'
but you have to remember this game is Not about integrity it's about Money & winning

How does the NFL have integrity when players take PEDs, when teams like the Pats cheat, etc?

How does the NHL have integrity when teams like Your Sabres throw entire Seasons?

You have to decide what you want more: integrity or a championship and if it's the former.... Don't look for it in football it's not here.

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 06:31 AM

You did say it.
You said that:
Knowing what you know today, you would not trade records with the Colts and have Luck on your team. You said you would never do it.... Never trade a few meaningless wins for Luck

No, that's not at all what I said. You said this:

You would take the 2012 Bills who finished 8-8 over the 2-14 Colts who 'won' the 1st overall pick and the Luck Sweepstakes.

I agreed and said that I would take 8-8 over 3-13 every time. I guess I didn't know there was a time machine option. My logic is that the draft is a gamble and 1 pick does not make or break a team. I would not waste an entire season to draft one person who may or may not be great. Do you need me to list some QB draft busts for you?

You still have never answered my question as to who you're trying to convince to lose these games and why you're trying to convince them. AKA...what's your point.

MillsapsBillsFan

02-01-2016, 06:37 AM

Mike

02-01-2016, 06:39 AM

It absolutely is a hindsight argument....
...My argument is of a fan who enjoys watching my team win football games. Knocking our division rival out of the playoffs was sweet. You are willing to trade that for the maybe marginally higher chance of getting a QB who might be good, or might be a bust. How many wins would you trade to get EJ Manuel?

I'll make it simple as not to confuse you.

The Keyword is PROBABILITY - when you have a better draft pick there is a higher opportunity to draft better which does make a difference especially when we're talking franchise QBs.

= Remember that 30% of time a SB was won by 1st pick in the draft and it will happen again this year.

Assuming you don't have a Franchise QB, If your goal is to win a SB, in a few very special cases (Luck, Manning) it is in your Longterm advantage to do what you can get those players.

Anyways... My hope is the Bills win a Super Bowl, I could care less if they beat the Jets in the preseason.

Mike

02-01-2016, 06:47 AM

That argument is not even close to true for two reasons
1) Youre assuming that we would have taken those same players in those same spots if we had lost one or two more games, and I don't think that's a 100% certainty.

> in the examples with Cam & Luke the Bills were very vocal about how much they coveted those players. Also it's wise to recall that the Bills were very transparent during those drafts.

2) Youre assuming that the players drafted before us have the same career trajectory on the Bills that they had on their current team, and there is no possible way to know that. Great players are products of not only their talent but also the system they are put in and the team around them.

> By and Large what makes Great players Great is that they transcend their circumstances which is why AWEFUL teams have HOF players from time to time....

The only thing we know 100% is that the Bills would have even more of a "loser" stigma then they do today.
> I doubt this for a number of reasons:
1. No one would believe it or remember it
2. If Bills had Cam or any other franchise QB they would be winning a lot more games and would be though of as winners...

MillsapsBillsFan

02-01-2016, 06:55 AM

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/)Also, the draft is inherently unpredictable. Having a higher draft pick does not automatically equate to getting a better player in the long term

- 2009 2nd overall pick was Jason Smith (T from Baylor) 23rd overall pick was Michael Oher (T from Ole Miss). Only one of those two is in the NFL now
- You like to talk about Aaron Rodgers so 2005 draft 1st overall pick was Alex Smith, 24th was Aaron Rodgers. Tell me how those extra losses helped their teams identify and select the right players?

Theres even statistical analysis going against what you say. In the long run one or two spots in the draft will not make a remarkable difference

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 07:17 AM

Remember that 30% of time a SB was won by 1st pick in the draft and it will happen again this year.

Let's actually dive into this statistic instead of blindly using it to support your argument. The following are Super Bowl winning QBs that were drafted 1st overall.

Terry Bradshaw - 1970 - Pittsburgh Steelers
Jim Plunkett - 1971 - New England Patriots
John Elway - 1983 - Baltimore Colts
Troy Aikman - 1989 - Dallas Cowboys
Drew Bledsoe - 1993 - New England Patriots
Peyton Manning - 1998 - Indianapolis Colts
David Carr - 2002 - Houston Texans
Eli Manning - 2004 - San Diego Chargers

Ok, there's your list. Do you see anything wrong with it?

Jim Plunkett - Didn't win the Super Bowl with the Patriots
John Elway - Didn't win the Super Bowl with the Colts
Drew Bledsoe - Sat the bench during his 'Super Bowl Victory'
David Carr - Sat the bench during his 'Super Bowl Victory'
Eli Manning - Didn't win the Super Bowl with the Chargers

Is this true? That only 3 quarterbacks have won the Super Bowl with the team that drafted them 1st overall? Man, that kind of puts a damper on your argument, no?

IlluminatusUIUC

02-01-2016, 08:08 AM

No One is talking about a tank job.

If a team is eliminated from playoffs in week 14 is it better to win last 2 meaningless games or get better draft picks?

I'll make it simple as not to confuse you.

The Keyword is PROBABILITY - when you have a better draft pick there is a higher opportunity to draft better which does make a difference especially when we're talking franchise QBs.

= Remember that 30% of time a SB was won by 1st pick in the draft and it will happen again this year.

Assuming you don't have a Franchise QB, If your goal is to win a SB, in a few very special cases (Luck, Manning) it is in your Longterm advantage to do what you can get those players.

Anyways... My hope is the Bills win a Super Bowl, I could care less if they beat the Jets in the preseason.

Now you've moved past losing a few extra games at the end of the season and gone all the way to "do what you can" to get the first overall pick. That's a tank job, no matter what you want to call it.

YardRat

02-01-2016, 12:31 PM

You need to look up the word 'hypothetical'.

In a hypothetical situation would you throw a few meaningless games for Aaron Rodgers?

Would you throw a few meaningless games for Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell, Joey Harrington, or Kyle Boller? I understand 'hypothetical' just fine, but you seem to be having difficulty with term 'hindsight'.

Once again...who is your 'Aaron Rodgers' in the 2016 draft that Buffalo should have foregone one, a couple, a few, or 'whatever it takes' 'meaningless wins' to have a better shot of getting?

Mr. Pink

02-01-2016, 01:12 PM

I'll take 8-8 over 3-13 every time. There is a lot more that goes into building a successful football team than who you get with one draft pick.

8-8 vs 3-13 means the exact same thing...you suck and aren't good enough.

You don't get anything extra for being close to making the playoffs. There's no gold star. There's no moral victory. There's no atta boy! The golf that the Browns were playing in January is the same golf that the Bills were playing.

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 02:03 PM

8-8 vs 3-13 means the exact same thing...you suck and aren't good enough.

You don't get anything extra for being close to making the playoffs. There's no gold star. There's no moral victory. There's no atta boy! The golf that the Browns were playing in January is the same golf that the Bills were playing.

You're saying that the Bills and the Titans are the same team right now? Neither one has a brighter future than the other? The Browns and the Jets are equivalent in all things?

John Doe

02-01-2016, 02:11 PM

It seems that the Buffalo fan base still turns out for "meaningless" games late in the season. Apparently, they still want the team to win.

If the team were to start tanking those games there would be a public relations nightmare.

Mr. Pink

02-01-2016, 02:24 PM

You're saying that the Bills and the Titans are the same team right now? Neither one has a brighter future than the other? The Browns and the Jets are equivalent in all things?

Yup.

Will the Titans, Bills, Browns or Jets make the playoffs in 2016? Nope.

All 4 teams will be golfing again come January 2017.

When your core, or even more importantly QB, isn't good enough - for whatever reason, you'll always be on the outside looking in or in a big uphill climb to try and steal the 6 seed. Whether you finish 0-16 or 8-8 it doesn't make any bit of difference.

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 02:29 PM

Yup.

Will the Titans, Bills, Browns or Jets make the playoffs in 2016? Nope.

All 4 teams will be golfing again come January 2017.

When your core, or even more importantly QB, isn't good enough - for whatever reason, you'll always be on the outside looking in or in a big uphill climb to try and steal the 6 seed. Whether you finish 0-16 or 8-8 it doesn't make any bit of difference.

With this logic, the 12 teams that made the playoffs this year will make the playoffs every year for the entire future of the NFL. You don't see a problem with that?

Mr. Pink

02-01-2016, 02:41 PM

With this logic, the 12 teams that made the playoffs this year will make the playoffs every year for the entire future of the NFL. You don't see a problem with that?

No. Because those teams will lose their core, QB, and then be replaced by someone else who has established that core/QB.

Why do you think the Pats, Steelers, Broncos are good year after year after year? These teams have been basically good this entire century so far. Is it an accident?

Why do you think the Browns, Titans, Bills are basically bad year after year after year? These teams have been basically crap this entire century so far. Is that an accident?

The formula for being a successful team in the NFL is pretty simple, it's just hard to actually accomplish. However, when ya do accomplish it, you're set for a decade+

If you're finishing 8-8 or worse, you're a middling average overall team which isn't good enough or even worse, which again not good enough is not good enough regardless of the final outcome. It doesn't matter if you go 9-7 one year, it doesn't mean you're gonna go 10-6 the next year and get in. Meaningless victories in December when you're already eliminated mean absolutely nothing. This Bills team went 9-7 2 seasons ago, what did it get them? Absolutely nothing. What did they do to build upon that success, if you want to even call it that? Absolutely nothing. Hell, the Browns went 10-6 in 2007, missed the playoffs by tiebreaker and what did they do to built upon that in 2008? 4-12. So what did either season get them? Home in January and absolutely nothing.

People seem to think parity exists in this league. The NFL wants you to think it exists. They want you to think come September every team has a chance to win the Superbowl. The reality is that's not even close to true.

Are the Bills a little better off than the Titans and Browns? On paper they are. They have the opportunity to compete for a 6 seed. In reality, they ain't getting that 6 seed...which puts them in the same place as the Titans and Browns. On the golf course for meaningful football games.

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 04:07 PM

No. Because those teams will lose their core, QB, and then be replaced by someone else who has established that core/QB.

Why do you think the Pats, Steelers, Broncos are good year after year after year? These teams have been basically good this entire century so far. Is it an accident?

Well it certainly has nothing to do with winning/losing meaningless games. Those three teams you listed did not lose on purpose to get their QBs. Brady was a 6th round pick, Manning was signed in free agency, Roethlisberger was the 3rd QB taken in the 1st round at pick 11. The Steelers won 4 of their last 8 games in 2003 after starting 2-6.

The Broncos had between 7 and 9 wins 5 out their previous 6 seasons before signing Peyton, now they are a power house. That looks to me like improvement while winning meaningless games.

Why do you think the Browns, Titans, Bills are basically bad year after year after year? These teams have been basically crap this entire century so far. Is that an accident?

Were all of the good players off the board by the time the Bills drafted?

The formula for being a successful team in the NFL is pretty simple, it's just hard to actually accomplish. However, when ya do accomplish it, you're set for a decade+

What's the formula? Lose on purpose until you get lucky in the draft?

If you're finishing 8-8 or worse, you're a middling average overall team which isn't good enough or even worse, which again not good enough is not good enough regardless of the final outcome. It doesn't matter if you go 9-7 one year, it doesn't mean you're gonna go 10-6 the next year and get in. Meaningless victories in December when you're already eliminated mean absolutely nothing. This Bills team went 9-7 2 seasons ago, what did it get them? Absolutely nothing. What did they do to build upon that success, if you want to even call it that? Absolutely nothing. Hell, the Browns went 10-6 in 2007, missed the playoffs by tiebreaker and what did they do to built upon that in 2008? 4-12. So what did either season get them? Home in January and absolutely nothing.

That's a ridiculous argument though. The Bills and Browns have also had 3, 4, and 5 win seasons. Where did those seasons get them? Same place they are after they win 8 or 9 games.

People seem to think parity exists in this league. The NFL wants you to think it exists. They want you to think come September every team has a chance to win the Superbowl. The reality is that's not even close to true.

You don't need to convince me of that.

Are the Bills a little better off than the Titans and Browns? On paper they are. They have the opportunity to compete for a 6 seed. In reality, they ain't getting that 6 seed...which puts them in the same place as the Titans and Browns. On the golf course for meaningful football games.

So it's just impossible to improve your team if your first pick is in the middle of the 1st round and that single pick is any teams only hope for improvement. Got it.

Mr. Pink

02-01-2016, 04:37 PM

So it's just impossible to improve your team if your first pick is in the middle of the 1st round and that single pick is any teams only hope for improvement. Got it.

Your chances of improving your team are greatly better if you have a higher pick because there is more talent, and better talent, available. Can you hit on picks anywhere in the draft? Of course you can. But it's not like the Bills have a great scouting/talent evaluation department. So when there are more choices, the likelihood of success on a choice is better just simply by the law of averages.

Can you still screw it up? Obviously. Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Jamarcus Russell, etc prove that.

But if your talent evaluation is up to snuff and you've identified three guys as your top 3 guys, the higher you pick, the more likely one of those 3 is available. And the more likely you will hit on your pick when you take one, instead of being forced to take the guy who's 15th on your board because you're stuck in the middle of the pack year after year.

I pointed out the Donahoe QB example earlier in the thread. Roethlisberger is the guy they identified as the guy they wanted...they won a meaningless December game that stopped them from getting that guy and were forced to trade up for their 2nd choice at QB....Losman. We know how that turned out.

That's just an illustration of how meaningless victories can set you back...and set you back years in that case. Of course, when your talent evaluators have you picking Donte Whitner 8th overall, you're setting yourself back. Or when you're trading up to get John McCargo. Or picking TJ Graham instead of Russell Wilson.

But talent evaluation and poor record goes hand in hand...if you don't have guys who can evaluate the talent coming up, then your likelihood of grabbing a top talent goes down the further down the draft board you tumble.

IE...you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to know to take Andrew Luck, like the Colts did, in 2012. You just had to be bad enough to be able to make that pick. That pick isn't an endorsement of Grigson, because anyone could have made it. If the Bills were bad enough to make that pick, Chan Gailey is still the head coach and Buddy Nix is a genius who turned the franchise around.

YardRat

02-01-2016, 04:47 PM

Andrew Luck still hasn't proven anything, if we're talking Super Bowls. He may be the next Peyton, and eventually win one...or, he could be the next Phillip Rivers and never make it (yet).

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 05:01 PM

But if your talent evaluation is up to snuff

This is really where it starts and stops. If your talent evaluation is up to snuff, it doesn't matter where you draft.

when your talent evaluators have you picking Donte Whitner 8th overall

It's a shame we didn't win more meaningless games that year, maybe Donte would've been off the board when we picked.

Mike

02-01-2016, 07:10 PM

Now you've moved past losing a few extra games at the end of the season and gone all the way to "do what you can" to get the first overall pick. That's a tank job, no matter what you want to call it

I guess I made it too difficult for you to follow so here is a simplified version:

You could argue that Draft position doesn't make a difference but
There is a reason why the NFL let's the teams with the worst records draft First...

You could argue that there is no difference between the following prospects: Manning, Elway, Luck vs JP Lossman, EJ Manuel but the entire college & NFL scouting community disagree with you.

Mike

02-01-2016, 07:14 PM

You're saying that the Bills and the Titans are the same team right now? Neither one has a brighter future than the other? The Browns and the Jets are equivalent in all things?

Titans have a Franchise QB & the 1st overall pick.

Odds are that the Titans would win a SB before the Bills.

PS: you said the same exact thing when the Colts drafted Luck...

IlluminatusUIUC

02-01-2016, 08:02 PM

I guess I made it too difficult for you to follow so here is a simplified version:

You could argue that Draft position doesn't make a difference but
There is a reason why the NFL let's the teams with the worst records draft First...

You could argue that there is no difference between the following prospects: Manning, Elway, Luck vs JP Lossman, EJ Manuel but the entire college & NFL scouting community disagree with you.

I don't think I ever said "draft position doesn't make a difference," what I'm saying is that good teams get good players no matter where they draft. You ask why the worst teams get to draft first, I ask in return, why do the worst teams consistently draft near the top of the first?

If losing in December and getting high draft picks is this guaranteed recipe, why do teams like Cleveland and St. Louis and Tennessee (which you are praising as a success story for some reason) keep picking there? Cleveland and St. Louis have each had six top 10 picks in the last 10 years. Tennessee has had five and has taken top 10 QBs three times.

Where is the turnaround?

Titans have a Franchise QB & the 1st overall pick.

Odds are that the Titans would win a SB before the Bills.

PS: you said the same exact thing when the Colts drafted Luck...

What exactly has Mariota done to justify calling him a franchise QB? Did you say that about RG3? Vince Young? He had a moderately impressive rookie season statistically, but on the field his team sank to the bottom of the worst division in football and got their coaching staff fired.

Joe Fo Sho

02-01-2016, 08:19 PM

Titans have a Franchise QB & the 1st overall pick.

Odds are that the Titans would win a SB before the Bills.

Odds are? Who came up with these odds? Are you just making stuff up again to convince yourself you know what you're talking about?

When should we expect the Titans to finish ahead of the Bills? Next year? 2020? Before Mariota's contract is up and he wins the Super Bowl with a different team?

PS: you said the same exact thing when the Colts drafted Luck...

Didn't we beat up on the Colts this year when Luck was healthy? Thanks for proving my point. I bet if they built a better team around Luck they wouldn't have to just beat up on the worst division in football to make themselves look good. You know what I mean, like they should use their other picks to draft better. Not just the single pick they used when they drafted Luck. They do get other ones, ya know, in other rounds.

Maybe now you can explain what the point of this thread is, like I've asked three times now. I mean, you do have a point right? There must be a target audience and a specific reason why you're trying to convince them of this magical time transcending logic?

Mike

02-02-2016, 11:31 PM

Odds are? Who came up with these odds?

>>> there are book makers that come up with such odds. Most SB were won by a Franchise QB and even the few that weren't, that QB played at a All Pro level the year the SB was won.

Having such a talent dramatically increase your likelihood of winning a SB over a team that does not have a Franchise QB. The reason for this is simple:
1. QB position is most valuable in Football & Maybe all of Sports
2. It's easier to build around a Franchise QB than to build the perfect team with a mediocre QB and then having to go out there a beat someone else's franchise QB

When should we expect the Titans to finish ahead of the Bills? Next year? 2020? Before Mariota's contract is up and he wins the Super Bowl with a different team?

Franchise QBs rarely leave in the prime of their career

Didn't we beat up on the Colts this year when Luck was healthy? Thanks for proving my point.
> obviously your no genius here. Didn't the Falcons beat the 15-1 Panters... Obviously Cam must suck.

Maybe now you can explain what the point of this thread is, like I've asked three times now. I mean, you do have a point right?
> I have addressed this a few times now but not directly to you.
>>> The Point of the thread is simple: Once ELIMINATED from Playoff Contention the Goal of the team should be to:
1) develop their rookies & 2nd year players
2) rest their Star players as to avoid injuries.
3) treat these games like you would a preseason game: to develop your roster.

Focus should not be on winning meaningless games with the potential cost of a major injury and lastly this *might improve your draft position which will Increase your OPPORTUNITY to draft a better player.

Mike

02-03-2016, 12:04 AM

I don't think I ever said "draft position doesn't make a difference," what I'm saying is that good teams get good players no matter where they draft. You ask why the worst teams get to draft first, I ask in return, why do the worst teams consistently draft near the top of the first?

>>> Because they don't have a top 5 QB. In the current NFL, How many times has it happened that an QB was an all pro and the team picked in the top 5 year after year?

Could you even imagine a Manning, Rodgers or Brady in their primes leading a team to bottom 5 year after year? Truth is you can't, but we all know exactly what happened when the Elite Manning went down for the season. Colts picked 1st & that can be the difference between a 2 win team and SB Contender.

PS: look at what happened to last year's Cardinals who started 9-0 after thier top 2 QBs were out for season.

If losing in December and getting high draft picks is this guaranteed recipe,

>>> Guarantees lol... There are NO Guarantees!!! It's a way for a team to improve their ODDs in a lost season.

> This why there is a Draft in the first place and is the reason why the Bad Teams pick 1st.... Becuase it Improves their ODDs of getting a better player

There No Guarantees
Odds are Improved
This Does Make a difference in the Long Run

why do teams like Cleveland and St. Louis and Tennessee (which you are praising as a success story for some reason) keep picking there? Cleveland and St. Louis have each had six top 10 picks in the last 10 years. Tennessee has had five and has taken top 10 QBs three times.

> They haven't drafted a franchise QB yet, but when they do you'll see a quick turnaround
> Colts found theirs and made playoffs every year since (until his injury)
> Panthers found theirs and they are in the SB
> Jags, Tennessee, Bucs all have QBs that showed a lot
> Cleavland & L.A. struck out... There are no guarantees but at least they went to bat

Where is the turnaround?
A turnaround takes a franchise QB & Time. It took Cam and the Panthers 4 years to 'turnaround' and become a Contender. It may look like it happened overnight, but few things ever do. It's a byproduct of a lot of work which at times isn't noticed until it's so obvious that you can't ignore it.

What exactly has Mariota done to justify calling him a franchise QB?

Marion's has a number of skills that I look for in a QB: touch, accuracy, leadership, pocket awareness, good learner. He has to learn to read defenses better, improve mechanics, get the nuances of the game and have consistency.

He is miles ahead of anyone on the Bills roster which is why I give Tenn the advantage when it comes to QB. I value the QB position most of all.

> IF it all comes together for Tennessee they will be a Contender
> The Bills don't even have the most critical piece so in order for them to become a contender they would need to have a roster like the 85 Bears which has a very low odds of happening.

* When I say Tennessee has better odds of becoming a Contender it's more of an indictment of the Bills than it is praise given to the Titans.*

Did you say that about RG3? Vince Young?
Actually I disliked both, especially VY. I also disliked Cam and gladly ate crow on this very site.

He had a moderately impressive rookie season statistically, but on the field his team sank to the bottom of the worst division in football and got their coaching staff fired.

> Tenn is a younge team and there is not much around Mariota. Considering the circumstances he played very well. Personally, I was never a big fan their HC. He took AZ to SB with Denis Greens roster and got the credit but he always struck me as too status-quo and conservative as a couch.

YardRat

02-03-2016, 04:17 AM

Mr. Pink

02-03-2016, 04:47 AM

Andrew Luck still hasn't proven anything, if we're talking Super Bowls. He may be the next Peyton, and eventually win one...or, he could be the next Phillip Rivers and never make it (yet).

Luck is the difference between the Bills and Colts though.

With Luck they are an 11-5 playoff team, without Luck they are an 8-8 middler.

We're the 8-8 middler because we don't have a QB like Luck.

As long as Luck stays healthy, the Colts will be in the playoffs year after year.

MillsapsBillsFan

02-03-2016, 05:47 AM

Luck is the difference between the Bills and Colts though.

With Luck they are an 11-5 playoff team, without Luck they are an 8-8 middler.

We're the 8-8 middler because we don't have a QB like Luck.

As long as Luck stays healthy, the Colts will be in the playoffs year after year.

Luck still played in 7 games this year, they went 2-5 with him. A QB is very very important, but having an elite qb doesn't mean **** most of the time if theres no other players.

Joe Fo Sho

02-03-2016, 06:14 AM

Who would you trade some meaningless wins, turning them into losses, this past season to draft for, Mike? What QB should the Bills have lost for, so they would have a better opportunity to draft them this year?

He refuses to answer this question because then he might be held accountable for thinking we should draft a bust. He'd rather play the hindsight game and argue about players we should have drafted in the past knowing that they've already become valuable players.

Joe Fo Sho

02-03-2016, 06:47 AM

there are book makers that come up with such odds.

So what are the odds then? Or aren't there any?

1. QB position is most valuable in Football & Maybe all of Sports
2. It's easier to build around a Franchise QB than to build the perfect team with a mediocre QB and then having to go out there a beat someone else's franchise QB

Was anybody arguing this?

Franchise QBs rarely leave in the prime of their career

So when should we be expecting the Titans to be better than the Bills? Since, of course, the 'odds are' that it's going to happen.

Didn't the Falcons beat the 15-1 Panters... Obviously Cam must suck.

The Falcons were a better team that day, obviously it doesn't take a genius to see that.

> I have addressed this a few times now but not directly to you.
>>> The Point of the thread is simple: Once ELIMINATED from Playoff Contention the Goal of the team should be to:
1) develop their rookies & 2nd year players
2) rest their Star players as to avoid injuries.
3) treat these games like you would a preseason game: to develop your roster.

Focus should not be on winning meaningless games with the potential cost of a major injury and lastly this *might improve your draft position which will Increase your OPPORTUNITY to draft a better player.
Who would you have liked the Bills to try to develop? Which guy on our inactive list/practice squad do you think should have gotten more playing time because it would benefit us in the future?

You still haven't answered my question though, which is...who is this thread directed towards and why are you trying to convince them of this? Looks like you mistakenly deleted it while responding to me.

1) develop their rookies & 2nd year players
2) rest their Star players as to avoid injuries.
3) treat these games like you would a preseason game: to develop your roster.

You mean like the Bills did against the Jets week 17? And still they won? What's your problem with that?

You wanted them to play their young talent and backups, and tell them to lose? How do you develop players that way?

Joe Fo Sho

02-03-2016, 08:02 AM

there are book makers that come up with such odds.

Here's a link to the actual odds of winning the Super Bowl next year, courtesy of the Westgate Las Vegas Superbook. These weren't just made up on the spot.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/32for32x160203/every-team-odds-win-super-bowl-next-year-nfl

They've got the Bills at 30-1 and the Titans at 50-1.

When are the Titans supposed to take over the Bills because we won 2 meaningless games this year? 2017? 2018? 2025?

IlluminatusUIUC

02-03-2016, 08:34 AM

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:14 PM

So let me get this straight, Mike. You "disliked" Cam and ate crow about him, but now come on to here upset that we didn't lose more games in 2010 to draft him? That is a hindsight argument, exactly what I've been saying.

And Andrew Luck has nothing to do with us.
1) Everyone knew he was going to be the #1 overall pick for two solid years
2) The Colts went 2-14 the year they drafted him
3) The Bills opened 3-0 that year.

That's it. End of story. We were out of the Luck derby by the end of September.

Are you really so dense as not to Understand the simple concept of ODDS?

Really? You don't believe that a the top pick in the draft gives your better ODDS of getting a good player than the 189th pick?

So you are clearly disagreeing with the NFL, scouts & GMs that the worst teams should draft 1st?

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:18 PM

He refuses to answer this question because then he might be held accountable for thinking we should draft a bust. He'd rather play the hindsight game and argue about players we should have drafted in the past knowing that they've already become valuable players.

Clearly you don't believe draft position matters.

The NFL, GMs, scouts & coaches disagree with you.

If your in charge you would probably give the Pats their 1st rounder back becuase you don't think it matters.

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:19 PM

Luck is the difference between the Bills and Colts though.

With Luck they are an 11-5 playoff team, without Luck they are an 8-8 middler.

We're the 8-8 middler because we don't have a QB like Luck.

As long as Luck stays healthy, the Colts will be in the playoffs year after year.

Sorry Pink but these guys don't understand the value of a Luck, Manning, Brady etc.... Or what it takes to land these guys

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:23 PM

So let me get this straight, Mike. You "disliked" Cam and ate crow about him, but now come on to here upset that we didn't lose more games in 2010 to draft him? That is a hindsight argument, exactly what I've been saying.

And Andrew Luck has nothing to do with us.
1) Everyone knew he was going to be the #1 overall pick for two solid years
2) The Colts went 2-14 the year they drafted him
3) The Bills opened 3-0 that year.

That's it. End of story. We were out of the Luck derby by the end of September.

How many times in the modern NFL has a top 5 QB finished at the bottom
while having a Pro Bowl Season?

You seem to not value the QB position or the Drafting of Top Prospects

How many EJ Manuals & JP Losmans do you want to draft before you realize that there is a difference between a prospect like Luck & EJ Manual?

To you All College QBs must be the same....

ODDS make a difference
Thats why the draft let's worst teams pick 1st

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:39 PM

@IlluminatusUIUC

Your making a Hindsight argument because you can't tell the difference between one QB prospect and the next.
TO you there was no difference between Luck & EJ Manual
TO you all these guys are the same but to a Scout they are miles apart.

So if a team drafts one or the other is was simple luck and hindsight.

But again the entire NFL disagrees with you.

>Players are studies & there's a combine so it improves ODDs of drafting a better player

>>Worst Teams get to pick 1st so they have best chances to improve

>>> Scouts have GRADES and RANK players against each other and past players.

Why does each team go through all of this trouble?

= So they can IMPROVE their ODDS of drafting a good player

Do You AGREE that higher draft position improves your ODDS to draft a better player than lower draft position?

IlluminatusUIUC

02-03-2016, 09:42 PM

Are you really so dense as not to Understand the simple concept of ODDS?

Really? You don't believe that a the top pick in the draft gives your better ODDS of getting a good player than the 189th pick?

So you are clearly disagreeing with the NFL, scouts & GMs that the worst teams should draft 1st?

You're not talking about ODDS, you're talking about certainty. The certainty of someone who is looking backwards and complaining that we didn't start tanking in September.

And, remember, this whole thread started with you *****ing that we didn't draft Luke Kuechly in 2012, a middle linebacker. Now somehow it's morphed into a thread about QBs only, and 1st overall QBs no less.

Remember? Your original post? There were only two QBs who have proven themselves to be franchise guys in the 2012 draft: Luck, who we had no shot at drafting unless we completely tanked the 2011 season, and Russell Wilson, who we had three chances to draft and failed.

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:51 PM

You're not talking about ODDS, you're talking about certainty. The certainty of someone who is looking backwards and complaining that we didn't start tanking in September.

And, remember, this whole thread started with you *****ing that we didn't draft Luke Kuechly in 2012, a middle linebacker. Now somehow it's morphed into a thread about QBs only, and 1st overall QBs no less.

Remember? Your original post? There were only two QBs who have proven themselves to be franchise guys in the 2012 draft: Luck, who we had no shot at drafting unless we completely tanked the 2011 season, and Russell Wilson, who we had three chances to draft and failed.

Are you kidding me right now?

My entire argument is ODDs

to date you've downplayed ODDs so I resorted to examples and examples are flawed because they are hypothetical.

I have simply tried to make it as concrete as Possible. You see the many people here don't understand ODDS very well and stories work better.

The Entire premise is that ODDS Matter
especially over a long period of time

Mike

02-03-2016, 09:57 PM

PS: I could care less that we didn't 'tank' or that we drafted EJ. That's all said and done. The fat lady sang!

In the future the Team has to do EVERYTHING in their power to Increase their ODDs of getting a Great Player especially when the team has nothing to play for.

Next year this team better be competitive or blow the whole thing up...

IlluminatusUIUC

02-03-2016, 10:18 PM

Are you kidding me right now?

My entire argument is ODDs

to date you've downplayed ODDs so I resorted to examples and examples are flawed because they are hypothetical.

I have simply tried to make it as concrete as Possible. You see the many people here don't understand ODDS very well and stories work better.

The Entire premise is that ODDS Matter
especially over a long period of time

That premise is flawed. Good teams find talent throughout the draft, without treating meaningful games like the preseason. Just look at Baltimore. Until this year,they hadn't drafted ahead of us since 2003. Yet they've found elite guys year after year.

Mike

02-03-2016, 11:52 PM

That premise is flawed. Good teams find talent throughout the draft, without treating meaningful games like the preseason. Just look at Baltimore. Until this year,they hadn't drafted ahead of us since 2003. Yet they've found elite guys year after year.

Its Not Flawed. Your falling back into a 'Hindsight Argument' by looking past examples that support your ideology.

This is purely an ODDS.
In the upcoming Draft a Team drafting 1st has Better Odds that getting a good player than a team drafting 189th.
Better Odds.

Every so often, a Generational Talent is comes out (Gretzky, Lemieux, Elway, Etc) which have a HIGH ODDS of changing the Destiny of a Franchise.

In these 'opportune times' teams have taken advantage and tanked in order to draft that Generational Talent.

Pittsburgh did it Lemiex becuase the cost of losing a few extra meaningless games was a very small price to pay to have the opportunity to draft a Highly Rated Generational Prospect.

Pittsburgh Played the ODDS and WON a few Stantley Cups. The was not hindsight it was foresight. It was PLAYING HIGHLY FAVORABLE ODDS & Winning.

Sabres did it last year & landed Jack Eichel whose play has justified their tanking

http://m.thn.com/blog/nhls-new-draft-lottery-rules-will-encourage-tanking-heres-why/

Many teams have done this befor which is why the NHL now has a draft lottery for the top 3 picks.

For the NFL a Generational QB Prospect offers tremendous opportunity for improvement which many GMs would be willing to sacrifice a season for given they already have a bad team.

YardRat

02-04-2016, 04:01 AM

In the future the Team has to do EVERYTHING in their power to Increase their ODDs of getting a Great Player especially when the team has nothing to play for.

Who is that great QB in this year's draft?

Joe Fo Sho

02-04-2016, 06:15 AM

Clearly you don't believe draft position matters.

Can you show me where I said that, or are you just making stuff up...yet again?

If your in charge you would probably give the Pats their 1st rounder back becuase you don't think it matters.

Nice scenario, it really shows me you understand anything I'm saying.

Joe Fo Sho

02-04-2016, 06:17 AM

Sorry Pink but these guys don't understand the value of a Luck, Manning, Brady etc.... Or what it takes to land these guys

How many meaningless games in December did the Pats lose in order to draft Tom Brady in the 6th round.

Joe Fo Sho

02-04-2016, 06:28 AM

Are you really so dense as not to Understand the simple concept of ODDS?

Odds are that the Titans would win a SB before the Bills.

>>> there are book makers that come up with such odds.

Here's a link to the actual odds of winning the Super Bowl next year, courtesy of the Westgate Las Vegas Superbook. These weren't just made up on the spot.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/32for32x160203/every-team-odds-win-super-bowl-next-year-nfl

They've got the Bills at 30-1 and the Titans at 50-1.

It appears to me that you're the one who doesn't understand the concept of ODDS? Do you want me to help explain them to you?

IlluminatusUIUC

02-04-2016, 08:57 AM

Its Not Flawed. Your falling back into a 'Hindsight Argument' by looking past examples that support your ideology.

That's rich. Look at your posts:

Cam Newton & Luke Keachly

2 Superstars that helped lead the Panthers to 15-1 and a SB 50

Bills wanted both players badly. Even tried trading up for both!

2 Games Separated the Bills from the Panthers in 2011 (Cam Draft) & 2012 Draft (Luke draft).

> 2 Games and a tiebreaker these these superstars would be wearing a Bills uniform.<

Instead the Bills got the privlage of winning short term & 2 meaningless games while the Panthers won long term and lost a few extra meaningless games.

Who would you rather be?

How is that not a "specific example to support your ideology"? Your entire claim is that teams get better when they lose games at the end of the season, but you can't even find examples of that. The 2011 Colts and 2003 Steelers actually finished the season stronger then they started it.

Your own topic started with a lament that we didn't get Cam Newton, a guy you admitted you didn't even want.

Every so often, a Generational Talent is comes out (Gretzky, Lemieux, Elway, Etc) which have a HIGH ODDS of changing the Destiny of a Franchise.

In these 'opportune times' teams have taken advantage and tanked in order to draft that Generational Talent.

Pittsburgh did it Lemiex becuase the cost of losing a few extra meaningless games was a very small price to pay to have the opportunity to draft a Highly Rated Generational Prospect.

Pittsburgh Played the ODDS and WON a few Stantley Cups. The was not hindsight it was foresight. It was PLAYING HIGHLY FAVORABLE ODDS & Winning.

Sabres did it last year & landed Jack Eichel whose play has justified their tanking

http://m.thn.com/blog/nhls-new-draft-lottery-rules-will-encourage-tanking-heres-why/

Many teams have done this befor which is why the NHL now has a draft lottery for the top 3 picks.

Hockey is a much different sport then football. One player can carry a team much more then even a QB in football. Dan Marino is five times the QB Eli Manning ever was, but the latter has two rings to Marino's zero.

It's also notable that your own examples of generational talent you should tank for includes Elway, a guy who was traded on draft day, and Gretzky, a guy who wasn't even drafted at all. In 1998, the year we would have had to tank to get Manning, we were a 10 win playoff team. Are you saying you'd tank a playoff season for a draft pick?

You've been asked about a half-dozen times now. Using your foresight, who is the generational player in the 2016 draft that we should have tanked for? When is the next generational player coming

For the NFL a Generational QB Prospect offers tremendous opportunity for improvement which many GMs would be willing to sacrifice a season for given they already have a bad team.

No they won't. Even if you think the 2011 Colts were an intentional tank job, you should keep in mind that it got almost everyone fired.

Jim Caldwell - Fired
Bill Polian - Fired
Chris Polian - Fired
Clyde Christensen (OC) - Demoted to position coach
Larry Coyer (DC) - Fired

Only two of those guys have reached their former positions with new teams, and two left the NFL entirely.

Who do you think is going to follow your advice?

Mike

02-04-2016, 09:54 AM

@IlluminatusUIUC

Who would risk this? How about the Sabres GM with full support of ownership!
Ironically you have Eichel in your signature the very player the Sabres won.

Most Importantly Your getting lost in the complexity!

So let's step back...and Focus on the 1 thing:

HIGHER Pick = Better ODDS

==============================

Imagine that you could bet on a coin toss (50/50 odds of head or tails) that payed out 3 to 1.

Would you take this bet?

IlluminatusUIUC

02-04-2016, 10:01 AM

@IlluminatusUIUC

Your getting lost in the complexity!

So let's step back...and Focus on the 1 thing:

HIGHER Pick = Better ODDS

==============================

Imagine that you could bet on a coin toss (50/50 odds of head or tails) that payed out 3 to 1.

Would you take this bet?

You keep likening this to a coin flip, but you can't actually know the odds of an NFL player's success in advance. Period.

If you want to take this analogy all the way, it's a coin flip where you don't actually get to see the result for years after you flip, and you are likely to get fired before you find out. Still taking those odds?

Mike

02-04-2016, 01:45 PM

You keep likening this to a coin flip, but you can't actually know the odds of an NFL player's success in advance. Period.

> That's where your wrong. There is an actual difference between Elway and EJ Manual as prospects. Prospects get something called a draft grade from scouts which is essentially their ODDS of being successful. Elway had a score of 99/100 which means he had a very high chance of success and a potentially really high return.

Drafting Elway was like flipping a coin 100 and having the option of selecting both heads & tails 90 of times with a high payout (50-1). Success was not guaranteed, Elway could still have sucked but the ODDS were Low.

EJ Manual had a score of 68 which isn't impressive. His ODDS of panning out were less than a coin flip and had a Low payouts. As a result of this Risk, most teams had EJ as a 4th or 5th round draft pick.

ODDS are a funny thing. Las Vegas Casinos have Odds advantage in ever single game but from time to time you might walk away a winner. This doesn't mean that odds don't matter and that you should blow your life's saving at a Casino.

In the End the House Always Wins because they Have ODDS on their side.

If you want to take this analogy all the way, it's a coin flip where you don't actually get to see the result for years after you flip, and you are likely to get fired before you find out. Still taking those odds?

For for a generational prospect absolutely.

I'll take those ODDs as a GM. The alternative of picking an average, coin flip prospect worth a low payout is far worst and is just as likely to get you canned.

The question, is what do you Gain from winning a meaningless game?

Joe Fo Sho

02-04-2016, 02:30 PM

The question, is what do you Gain from winning a meaningless game?

As a fan? It's certainly more fun to win than it is to lose. You can make all of the Jets fans in your office buy you lunch and see them be miserable that they missed the playoffs because they couldn't even beat you once, you can make the Cowboys fan in your office put a Bills logo on their truck for a month, use your imagination. I sure as hell don't want to suffer through a miserable season to get a high draft pick only to suffer through 5 more losing seasons like we've been doing. I'll take the wins where I can get them and hope for improvement every year.

Are you just trying to convince fans to root for losses once we've been eliminated from the playoffs? Is that the point of all this nonsense?

IlluminatusUIUC

02-04-2016, 02:38 PM

That's where your wrong. There is an actual difference between Elway and EJ Manual as prospects. Prospects get something called a draft grade from scouts which is essentially their ODDS of being successful. Elway had a score of 99/100 which means he had a very high chance of success and a potentially really high return.

Drafting Elway was like flipping a coin 100 and having the option of selecting both heads & tails 90 of times with a high payout (50-1). Success was not guaranteed, Elway could still have sucked but the ODDS were Low.

EJ Manual had a score of 68 which isn't impressive. His ODDS of panning out were less than a coin flip and had a Low payouts. As a result of this Risk, most teams had EJ as a 4th or 5th round draft pick.

ODDS are a funny thing. Las Vegas Casinos have Odds advantage in ever single game but from time to time you might walk away a winner. This doesn't mean that odds don't matter and that you should blow your life's saving at a Casino.

In the End the House Always Wins because they Have ODDS on their side.

I never said Elway and Manuel were equal prospects, I said that tanking an entire season to get a "generational" player is likely to get the staff fired. They aren't going to do it.

Funny story about the Elway draft. The team that "tanked" to get him didn't actually get him, and the poor Buffalo Bills drafted a Hall of Fame QB anyway. Oops!

For for a generational prospect absolutely.

I'll take those ODDs as a GM. The alternative of picking an average, coin flip prospect worth a low payout is far worst and is just as likely to get you canned.

You might, but actual GMs won't. People were calling for Doug Whaley's head and the team finished 8-8. Imagine they did what you wanted and tanked after the KC loss, finishing 5-11. What do you think the ODDS are that Whaley has a job in Buffalo today?

Also I'll ask again: Who is the generational player in the 2016 draft? The longer you go without answering the question, the weaker your entire point looks.

The question, is what do you Gain from winning a meaningless game?

Who is the "you" in this sentence? If its Whaley, then he gets to keep his job. If it's me, the fan, I get to see them kick a hated division rival right in the dick.

YardRat

02-04-2016, 03:24 PM

WHO IS THE QB THE BILLS SHOULD HAVE TANKED FOR THIS SEASON?

pmoon6

02-04-2016, 03:42 PM

Mace

02-04-2016, 03:46 PM

WHO IS THE QB THE BILLS SHOULD HAVE TANKED FOR THIS SEASON?

You know, that's an excellent point.

Joe Fo Sho

02-05-2016, 11:34 AM

The Buffalo Bills ****ed up not tanking any of the seasons where they could have drafted "generational" players like Cryin' Leaf, Mike Vick, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, Rick Mirer, and Vince Young....oh wait we got the last one, but not in the draft.

On the flip side, here are just some of the players the Bills left on the board after drafting in the 1st round and before our 2nd round pick.

<tbody>
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008

Odell Beckham, Jr - WR
Sheldon Richardson - DT
Dontari Poe - DT
AJ Green - WR
Earl Thomas - S
Brian Cushing - LB
Ryan Clady - OT

Aaron Donald - DT
Eric Reid - S
Fletcher Cox - DT
Patrick Peterson - CB
Mike Iupati - G
Jeremy Maclin - WR
Brandon Albert - G

Teddy Bridgewater - QB
Kyle Long - G
Chandler Jones - DE
Tyron Smith - OT
Demaryius Thomas - WR
Alex Mack - C
Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie - CB

Derek Carr - QB
Tyler Eifert - TE
David DeCastro - G
JJ Watt - DE
Dez Bryant - WR
Michael Oher - OT
Joe Flacco - QB

DeAndre Hopkins - WR
Dont'a Hightower - LB
Muhammad Wilkerson - DE
Rob Gronkowski - TE
(picked just after our 2nd round pick)
Clay Matthews - LB
Aqib Talib - CB

</tbody>

If you really want to be miserable and play the hindsight game, try inserting one guy from each of these drafts onto our roster in lieu of who we drafted. Wouldn't it be nice to see Flacco in a Bills uniform throwing to Gronk and Hopkins, with Aaron Donald, JJ Watt, Clay Matthews, and Chandler Jones on the other side of the ball?

Maybe we should have won more meaningless games so that these guys would have been more likely to be at the top of our draft board. Because as the ODDS are, that's exactly what would happen.

Mike

02-06-2016, 11:11 AM

YardRat

02-06-2016, 11:31 AM

thanks for showing you stupidity

If you think Jamarcus Russel, Carr, Harrington, Younge were GENERATIONAL Talents you don't know shiiittt

Who is the QB in this year's draft that the Bills should have lost for?

Mike

02-06-2016, 11:33 AM

I never said Elway and Manuel were equal prospects, I said that tanking an entire season to get a "generational" player is likely to get the staff fired. They aren't going to do it.

>>> This is entirely Speculation. Weather or Not a GM gets fired has a lot more to do with a 'Body of work' than bad season here or there. Look at how many chances Doug Whaley has had without a single playoff season or generational prospect to show for it. <<<<

You might, but actual GMs won't.
> That's Factually inaccurate. The Sabres did it last year with full support of ownership. Did the GM get fired or is he getting credit for rebuilding the Sabres? If you recall, the Sabres were once a middle of the road team just like the Bills and were purposely blown up. They traded away all of their best players, loaded up on picks, and did everything in their power to tank year after year. As a result they have a bunch of great prospects & a generation talent.

*If they win a Stanley Cup it will be becuase they made this sacrifice

Please don't be so naive as to think the Sabres are the only franchise to manufacture a tanking. The 76ers did it, the Penguins did it and I would not be surprised if the Colts did it.

People were calling for Doug Whaley's head and the team finished 8-8. Imagine they did what you wanted and tanked after the KC loss, finishing 5-11. What do you think the ODDS are that Whaley has a job in Buffalo today?
> Clearky there is no way to know that. However, based on your logic, Why is he still here?

Also I'll ask again: Who is the generational player in the 2016 draft?
There is None. This is a forward looking topic. I made this same argument when Luck was coming out.... And most of the posters blasted me then. They argued how there was no way to know if he'll be good, that it wasn't worth the risk (risk of what?) etc...

There will be another generational talent that emerges and the question will be, will the Bills be in position to get him? If you look at today's NFL, it is Dominates by Generational QBs: For example Manning & Brady have accounted for 10 SB appearances in last 15 years and they both play in the AFC!

Who is the "you" in this sentence? If its Whaley, then he gets to keep his job. If it's me, the fan, I get to see them kick a hated division rival right in the dick.

> If 8 wins is all that's needed for Whaley to Keep his Job and for you to be a Happy Fan then you deserve each other.
Based on the responses in the thread the Bills fans are getting exactly what they want and deserve. 8-8 is clearly good enough for all of you<

Mike

02-06-2016, 11:40 AM

Who is the QB in this year's draft that the Bills should have lost for?
There is None.
Generational talents are Rare... And when you can get one you do what you can to draft him.
This year's QBs draft class is good, nothing special.

To my surprise, Most posters feel the same way you do.
They would rather go 8-8 then 2-14 and draft a Generational Telent
Even if they could *Magically go back to 2012 and change the Bills's record and draft Luck they wouldn't do it because those extra few wins really meant something to them.

Im fine with that.
I prefer a Super Bowl but I guess that's just me.

Mike

02-06-2016, 11:46 AM

As a fan? It's certainly more fun to win than it is to lose. You can make all of the Jets fans in your office buy you lunch and see them be miserable that they missed the playoffs because they couldn't even beat you once, you can make the Cowboys fan in your office put a Bills logo on their truck for a month, use your imagination. I sure as hell don't want to suffer through a miserable season to get a high draft pick only to suffer through 5 more losing seasons like we've been doing. I'll take the wins where I can get them and hope for improvement every year.

Are you just trying to convince fans to root for losses once we've been eliminated from the playoffs? Is that the point of all this nonsense?

I get it... Those wins mean something to you

To me they mean something different.

In the end, we're both rooting for the Bills. Your rooting for short term success of the team, I'm rooting for long term success.

I'm willing to sacrifice the present and take one step back as a franchise so we can take 3 steps forward.

IlluminatusUIUC

02-06-2016, 02:20 PM

This is entirely Speculation. Weather or Not a GM gets fired has a lot more to do with a 'Body of work' than bad season here or there.

2016 #1 pick Titans -> Fired coach and GM
2015 #1 pick Bucs -> Didn't fire anyone immediately, coach fired next year
2014 #1 pick Texans -> Fired coach
2013 #1 pick Chiefs -> Fired coach and GM
2012 #1 pick Colts -> Fired coach and GM
2011 #1 pick Panthers -> Fired coach
2010 #1 pick Rams -> Fired coach
2009 #1 pick Lions -> Fired coach, GM fired midseason
2008 #1 pick Dolphins -> Fired coach (first year of his deal) and GM
2007 #1 pick Raiders -> Fired coach (first year of his deal), GM was owner so couldn't fire him
2006 #1 pick Texans -> Fired coach, GM stepped down next year

Gee, it sure seems like finishing dead last in the league is bad for your career. Several of the guys mentioned have yet to return to being GMs or head coaches anywhere.

YardRat

02-06-2016, 03:36 PM

There is None.
Generational talents are Rare... And when you can get one you do what you can to draft him.
This year's QBs draft class is good, nothing special.

Thanks for finally answering.

To my surprise, Most posters feel the same way you do.
They would rather go 8-8 then 2-14 and draft a Generational Telent
Even if they could *Magically go back to 2012 and change the Bills's record and draft Luck they wouldn't do it because those extra few wins really meant something to them.

Im fine with that.
I prefer a Super Bowl but I guess that's just me.

You might have already covered this, but what QB's drafted since 2000 do you consider 'generational talent'?

Mr. Pink

02-06-2016, 03:57 PM

See I personally don't think you should tank out an entire year for any reason. But when you get to a certain point in the season you should realize the season is in fact lost. Once this years team lost to KC the writing on the wall was already there that the Bills were done.

When you reach that point winning should become secondary. Your goal should be to develop young talent and see what you got in guys who won't get into regular game situations. That way you can see if you found one of those diamonds in the rough or if a guy you're trying to develop is complete garbage and should just be jettisoned.

In addition to using the remainder of said season to be basically an extended preseason, you're more likely to lose more games which in turn puts you higher on the draft board. Obviously if you're higher on the board, there is a larger talent pool to choose from. I brought up Big Ben as an example earlier in the thread as an obvious reason but I'll give another reason that also makes sense.

In 2013, the Bills were 4-9. They proceeded to win 2 of the remaining 3 to go 6-10. Now, admittedly I don't know if the Browns or Bills had a weaker SOS, but they lose out those 3 meaningless games they are also 4-12...like the Browns. With a weaker SOS the trade made with Cleveland to acquire Sammy Watkins doesn't even need to happen. If Cleveland has the tiebreaker, you then have to offer less to move up one slot or you just sit there realizing the Browns likely aren't drafted a WR anyway.

So in my 2 examples of meaningless victories one cost the Bills Big Ben completely and they settled on JP which took a trade and future picks to acquire and the second it cost the Bills 2 first round picks to get Sammy.

One should not win meaningless games that provide zero value at the time as well in the future at the expense of future assets and talent. Playing the hindsight game where you say well the Bills should have drafted OBJ instead of Sammy is an exercise in futility as Watkins is who they scouted to be better and that's who they wanted all along. Same goes with Big Ben. But having a viewpoint that a certain time in your season that losing far outweighs winning is an easy connection to make. As well as seeing how easily this team would look very different today than currently constructed. If the Bills don't win that meaningless Jet game back in the day, they draft Big Ben. And this team isn't on their current course of 16 seasons with no playoffs.

It's hard to justify a team throwing an entire year for that generational talent as your team as currently constructed can surprise the league. Guys might end up being better than you thought initially. Guys may develop faster than you thought they would. The QB you're currently riding might have that proverbial light bulb go off in his head, like with Tyrod, he might realize next year that throwing tight end seam passes is in fact a winning strategy in the NFL. But you reach a certain point in the season and you're well aware that you're going nowhere and winning the games after you reach that point is more of a detriment than anything else.

pmoon6

02-06-2016, 04:09 PM

Joe Fo Sho

02-06-2016, 06:09 PM

In the end, we're both rooting for the Bills. Your rooting for short term success of the team, I'm rooting for long term success.

You actually have no idea what you're rooting for, that much is painfully obvious.

Mike

02-07-2016, 02:54 PM

Mace

02-07-2016, 03:57 PM

There is None.
Generational talents are Rare... And when you can get one you do what you can to draft him.
This year's QBs draft class is good, nothing special.

To my surprise, Most posters feel the same way you do.
They would rather go 8-8 then 2-14 and draft a Generational Telent
Even if they could *Magically go back to 2012 and change the Bills's record and draft Luck they wouldn't do it because those extra few wins really meant something to them.

Im fine with that.
I prefer a Super Bowl but I guess that's just me.

Like Andrew Luck. Generational talent, feasting on his division and no one else. No Super Bowls, next year will be his 5th. Assuming they tanked, which I still don't see how they did because they were that bad without Manning, but assuming they did, to get a generational QB, well....the Indy fans would prefer Super Bowls too, and look ! They had the same record this year as we did, with a generational talent they might have tanked for.

You might prefer a Super Bowl but you'll have to revise your method of getting there because losing on purpose doesn't look like it helps any in the NFL.

pmoon6

02-07-2016, 05:41 PM

So your saying the Sabres didn't tank and that the NHL is crazy for instituting a draft lottery to prevent future tanking?I don't know because I only watch hockey during the playoffs.

However, we are not talking about the NHL, we are talking about the NFL.

At any rate, people that think you should lose just to improve draft position are losers themselves.

Video game playing wannabe athletes that never had the skill or the heart for competitive athletics.

WagonCircler

02-07-2016, 08:01 PM

Luke Keachly looked like Brian Bosworth getting run over by Bo Jackson on that last TD.

Mike

02-07-2016, 10:27 PM

I don't know because I only watch hockey during the playoffs.

However, we are not talking about the NHL, we are talking about the NFL.
> We are talking about strategy and the previous comments said 'NO GM or ownership or players would stand for a complete tank job... Yet we have the Sabres to prove you all wrong!

At any rate, people that think you should lose just to improve draft position are losers themselves.
> Great to know you HATE the Buffalo Sabres and the Pegulas who you think are 'LOSERS'
PS: ownership & GM fully supported the tank job

Video game playing wannabe athletes that never had the skill or the heart for competitive athletics.

For you to try to say it's OK for the Sabres to tank but not the Bills is absolutely disingenuous

Mike

02-07-2016, 10:33 PM

Like Andrew Luck. Generational talent, feasting on his division and no one else. No Super Bowls, next year will be his 5th. Assuming they tanked, which I still don't see how they did because they were that bad without Manning, but assuming they did, to get a generational QB, well....the Indy fans would prefer Super Bowls too, and look ! They had the same record this year as we did, with a generational talent they might have tanked for.

You might prefer a Super Bowl but you'll have to revise your method of getting there because losing on purpose doesn't look like it helps any in the NFL.

In 2010 Season the Bills started the season 0-8 only to finish 4-4 and miss out on Cam an MVP QB

In 2011 Colts - the winningest team in NFL history over a decade- finished 2-14 and drafts Luck who is better than any QB the Bills have had.

Luck leads Colts to multiple playoff appearances and to AFC Championship Game while Cam takes Carolina to SB50.

In the meantime, the Bills have not made it to playoffs once.

So by your own standard, whose the Biggest loser of them all?

pmoon6

02-08-2016, 01:27 AM

For you to try to say it's OK for the Sabres to tank but not the Bills is absolutely disingenuousLike I said, I don't follow the NHL.

Is it a proven fact that Pegula and the Sabres intentionally tanked the season?

Or is it just speculation?

I will say that hockey is a very different sport. Aren't many hockey prospects sent down to the minors to get them ready for the next level?

At any rate, it's seems you are grasping at straws trying to prove your point.

WagonCircler

02-08-2016, 08:41 AM

For you to try to say it's OK for the Sabres to tank but not the Bills is absolutely disingenuous

It's not disingenuous, it's math.

An NFL roster has 53 players. An NHL roster has 23 players--less than half.

An NFL tank would be a massive rebuild.

We're seeing just how long it takes to rebuild a team in the NHL.

The sheer numbers and odds of failure in the NFL make tanking unrealistic.

WagonCircler

02-08-2016, 08:44 AM

Is it a proven fact that Pegula and the Sabres intentionally tanked the season?.

It depends on how you define "tank".

Did the players themselves take a dive like Jake LaMotta? Absolutely not.

Did Tim Murray intentionally put out an inferior team, while building a bank of assets? Absolutely.

Mike

02-08-2016, 08:45 AM

Like I said, I don't follow the NHL.

Is it a proven fact that Pegula and the Sabres intentionally tanked the season?
> For all intense & purposes the Sabres are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Or is it just speculation?
> Not speculation. If it went to court Sabres would get convicted of tanking 'cheating'. It's beyond a reasonable doubt which is why the NHL changes draft rules.

I will say that hockey is a very different sport.
> Your whole argument was that 'Coaches, Players & GM' would never tank on purpose because they would be jeopardizing their careers. You argues, 'what player or coach would sign up for this'? ...
By your logic, why would NHL players/coaches do this?

Aren't many hockey prospects sent down to the minors to get them ready for the next level?
> Great players aren't ever sent down. Even in a losing season, a player like Jack Eichel sells seats and are clearly NHL caliber. Difference makers don't get sent down.

At any rate, it's seems you are grasping at straws trying to prove your point.
> My point is already proven. Sabres are getting better as a direct result of tanking. Penguins did the same thing to get Super Mario and it's also been the case in Basketball where the 76ers intentionally tanked to get a generational talent.
As a result of tanking the Sabres got a Generational Talent last draft, Penguins won Stantley Cups and those are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Mike

02-08-2016, 08:51 AM

It depends on how you define "tank".

Did the players themselves take a dive like Jake LaMotta? Absolutely not.

Did Tim Murray intentionally put out an inferior team, while building a bank of assets? Absolutely.

See and that the whole Point!

You don't have to get player or coach buy in to tank.
The ONLY thing that needs to happen is for the GM or ownership to do what Tim Murray did.

If you look at the Colts Polian, he did some very similar things to land Luck, unfortunately for Polian his pics over the previous decade sucked so bad (making Colts a one trick/Manning Pony) that he was let go of.

76ers also did it... Quite openly as well

So did the Penguins to get Lemuix. They intentionally called up a goalie from the minors who had a GAA of 6.0!
The other bad team that year.... NJ Devils missed out on the Lemuix sweepstakes because of 1 victory against the Penguins in the last week of the season.

feldspar

02-08-2016, 09:02 AM

It depends on how you define "tank".

Did the players themselves take a dive like Jake LaMotta? Absolutely not.

Did Tim Murray intentionally put out an inferior team, while building a bank of assets? Absolutely.

Right. I think that management deliberately set up the team to fail, but the players and coaches did not lose games on purpose. Nobody would intentionally do that...destroy their reputations to large degree only so their team can get a player that they won't be around to enjoy anyway. Meanwhile, they go somewhere else (hopefully) and make less money.

WagonCircler

02-08-2016, 09:26 AM

See and that the whole Point!

You don't have to get player or coach buy in to tank.
The ONLY thing that needs to happen is for the GM or ownership to do what Tim Murray did.

If you look at the Colts Polian, he did some very similar things to land Luck, unfortunately for Polian his pics over the previous decade sucked so bad (making Colts a one trick/Manning Pony) that he was let go of.

76ers also did it... Quite openly as well

So did the Penguins to get Lemuix. They intentionally called up a goalie from the minors who had a GAA of 6.0!
The other bad team that year.... NJ Devils missed out on the Lemuix sweepstakes because of 1 victory against the Penguins in the last week of the season.

No, the whole point is that there are far, far more moving pieces involved in an NFL rebuild. It's infinitely more complex, and the Bills organization can barely tie their own shoes, much less executer a rebuild from scratch.

Mr. Pink

02-08-2016, 11:53 AM

Illuminatus has already covered the coaching and GM angle of losing games extensively.

Do any of you Bozos think a competitive athlete would go along with purposely losing games? Not only does it go against their nature as players, but it could cost them down the road should they hit free agency.

My theory still holds up considering this thread. Very few actual fans of football. All we have are fans of winning so they can rub their pathetic peckers against the TV screen. It's not enough to just be competitive and play good ball.

You Yoyos actually think you win by losing...in some alternate universe.

This isn't Madden, boys. This is real life complete with flesh and blood players, coaches and GMs all trying to keep or get another chance at employment.

You don't get that if you lose on purpose.

:rofl:

So you win overall by winning a few meaningless football games to get you from 4-12 to 6-10?

Or you win by going 8-8 and staying home from the playoffs for a 16th straight year?

The Buffalo Bills are the king of winning meaningless football games, where has it gotten them?

Oh that's right it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game! Professional sports isn't about entertainment and winning championships, it's about effort and trying, right?

FYI there are plenty of athletes in todays professional sports that care more about the paycheck than anything else. As long as they're getting paid or overpaid they could give a crap where they end up. Hell, guys like T.O. and Mario came here because the Bills overpaid them to do it. Both of those guys were well established around the league and both could have gone elsewhere for less money and the chance to win. Not to mention the guys like Dareus and Hughes who chose to resign here for big money when they could have entered FA and gone elsewhere where they might have been to win.

It is cute that some people still think that the majority of players are motivated by the competition and winning though.

pmoon6

02-08-2016, 12:47 PM

:rofl:

So you win overall by winning a few meaningless football games to get you from 4-12 to 6-10?

Or you win by going 8-8 and staying home from the playoffs for a 16th straight year?

The Buffalo Bills are the king of winning meaningless football games, where has it gotten them?

Oh that's right it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game! Professional sports isn't about entertainment and winning championships, it's about effort and trying, right?

FYI there are plenty of athletes in todays professional sports that care more about the paycheck than anything else. As long as they're getting paid or overpaid they could give a crap where they end up. Hell, guys like T.O. and Mario came here because the Bills overpaid them to do it. Both of those guys were well established around the league and both could have gone elsewhere for less money and the chance to win. Not to mention the guys like Dareus and Hughes who chose to resign here for big money when they could have entered FA and gone elsewhere where they might have been to win.

It is cute that some people still think that the majority of players are motivated by the competition and winning though.I expected you to agree with Mikey.

If you look up "Loser" in the dictionary, your picture is right there.