Quote:No, he put words in my mouth and then wanted me to find an NFL stat that corroborated the quote I didn't make.
I said the choice between 100% of a set of options is statistically going to produce a better result more often than not having a choice between 100% of a set of options. That's inarguable and applies to any part of life not just sports.
How did he put words in your mouth by quoting your post?
Quote:I don't see any real benefit to winning games other than to make a desperate fanbase happier. Losing games has not stopped any of the young guys such as Cyp from developing. I guess you can give the momentum argument, but you're still missing the playoffs, and will face an even longer offseason than the teams playing in the postseason.
I can't believe you still don't get it. Losing games means you suck. Sucking means you are far far away from being a contender. Being far far away from being a contender is not a good situation. Even if it means you can have the first pick in the draft.
Quote:Given the current draft standing, it looks like we might get the 3rd overall pick. Still think WAS can still win 2 more games. The main competitions right now are Houston, Minn and Tampa. Right now I'm leaning toward 3rd overall pick. If that is the case, I must ask you this: Would you be better off sacrificing 1 or 2 wins this season for the 1st overall pick or go 4-12 and get the 3rd overall pick?
We don't have that choice. We cannot choose to lose.
Quote:I can't believe you still don't get it. Losing games means you suck. Sucking means you are far far away from being a contender. Being far far away from being a contender is not a good situation. Even if it means you can have the first pick in the draft.
Puh-lease...you must have forgot the part where we were getting destroyed every Sunday. Now we win a few games against equally lousy opponents and now we're winners? Hey tell me where this team will be during the postseason. That's right sitting on the couch watching the playoffs. There are no moral victories. Nobody will remember us for winning 3 or 5 games. They will remember us for being so sorry. Get your head out of your behind, wake up and smell the ashes.
Round and round we go .....with all the GMs around here why did Khan have to fly his plane all over the place?
Now, we have a great owner, a promising GM and a team inspiring head coach. Now we're off the bottom of the league and recognized as
a team that ,while still needing some holes plugged, is turning around.
and all we can do is squabble about not the lack of progress but the occurrence of progress....even calling it meaningless.
I know I'll get called out for it but, I truly don't understand.
Quote:We don't have that choice. We cannot choose to lose.
True, but just from a strategic standpoint, having the 1st overall pick is much more valuable than, say, 3rd overall pick. What separates the two draft spot is probably just a single win.
Quote:I can't believe you still don't get it. Losing games means you suck. Sucking means you are far far away from being a contender. Being far far away from being a contender is not a good situation. Even if it means you can have the first pick in the draft.
So what does being a contender mean to you? Was this team ever a contender to begin with? How does finishing with a 4-12 record will help the team going into next season than finishing 2-14?
Some teams turnaround rather quickly, either for good or bad i.e. Colts and Falcons. That's why if you are finishing in the bottom 3 or 4 in the league, which this team is, wouldn't it be better if they finish last?
Quote: How does finishing with a 4-12 record help the team going into next season more than finishing 2-14?
I keep seeing some version of this question. I think it's hilarious. Nothing personal, but I can't get how you guys just ignore the obvious answer.
A team capable of winning 4 games
is actually better than a team that can only win two. So it helps you going into the next season because you are already better before the draft and free agency.
Let's make it crystal clear.
- 2-14 team + free agency + draft = improved team
- 4 -12 team + free agency + draft = an even more improved team
Quote:Lol ok, the implication was that winning games precluded the team from getting the first pick. If you're forcing me to be so literal then I will say that having the first pick is better than any other pick. If we can manage to win some late games and get the first pick then that is obviously the best of both worlds, but that usually doesn't happen.
I thought the same thing, and did some research on 1st pick vs. 2nd to prove the point. I looked at all of the drafts since 1990. The 2012 and 2013 drafts were too recent to make a clear player evaluation, so I threw them out.
I've highlighted franchise quality picks in green (16 total), solid contributors in red (12), disappointments in black (16).
1990 Jeff George ... Blair Thomas
1991
Russell Maryland
...
Eric Turner
1992 Steve Emtman ... Quentin Coryatt
1993
Drew Bledsoe
... Rick Mirer
1994
Dan Wilkinson
...
Marshall Faulk
1995 Ki-Jana Carter ...
Tony Boselli
1996
Keyshawn Johnson
...
Kevin Hardy
1997
Orlando Pace
...
Darrell Russell
1998
Peyton Manning
... Ryan Leaf
1999 Tim Couch ...
Donovan McNabb
2000 Courtney Brown ...
LaVar Arrington
2001
Michael Vick
... Leonard Davis
2002 David Carr ...
Julius Peppers
2003
Carson Palmer
... Charles Rogers
2004
Eli Manning
... Robery Gallery
2005
Alex Smith
... Ronnie Brown
2006
Mario Williams
...
Reggie Bush
2007 JaMarcus Russell ...
Calvin Johnson
2008
Jake Long
...
Chris Long
2009
Matthew Stafford
... Jason Smith
2010
Sam Bradford
...
Ndamukong Suh
2011
Cam Newton
...
Von Miller
Using my ratings, the 1st pick was better in 9 cases, the 2nd pick better in 7 cases, with 6 ties. Six times the 1st pick turned out significantly better, vs. four times the 2nd pick.
As far as I can see, there was a slight but not statistically significant advantage in picking 1st rather than 2nd. That result surprised me, as I thought there would be a clear advantage. You may disagree with some of my ratings (I valued long-term starting QBs like McNabb and Palmer higher than others might because the position is so important), but I don't think it makes a difference to the conclusion.
Quote:I keep seeing some version of this question. I think it's hilarious. Nothing personal, but I can't get how you guys just ignore the obvious answer.
A team capable of winning 4 games is actually better than a team that can only win two. So it helps you going into the next season because you are already better before the draft and free agency.
Let's make it crystal clear.
- 2-14 team + free agency + draft = improved team
- 4 -12 team + free agency + draft = an even more improved team
Uhhh....NO! By your logic, the ATL Falcons should be unbeaten by now since they had the NFC best record last year, correct? Because you know, a 13-3 team + free agency + draft = improved team, right? That logic is flawed because there are too many
variables to consider. Want more proof? Look at the Texans.
I'll give you another example, just look at the Jags and Chiefs last season. Both finished with a 2-14 records, yet one is top 5 team and the other is bottom is a 3 team. The difference is that the Chiefs were stacked team and the jags were rag team.
Could someone please actually answer my question: given this late into the season and that this team has a lot of holes to plug, what benefit is there to finish 4-14 and have the 3rd overall pick versus finish 2-14 and have the 1st overall pick to either get first dip at the pool of talents or trade down for more picks?
Quote:
I thought the same thing, and did some research on 1st pick vs. 2nd to prove the point. I looked at all of the drafts since 1990. The 2012 and 2013 drafts were too recent to make a clear player evaluation, so I threw them out.
I've highlighted franchise quality picks in green (16 total), solid contributors in red (12), disappointments in black (16).
<div>
1990 Jeff George ... Blair Thomas
1991 Russell Maryland
... Eric Turner
1992 Steve Emtman ... Quentin Coryatt
1993 Drew Bledsoe
... Rick Mirer
1994 Dan Wilkinson
... Marshall Faulk
1995 Ki-Jana Carter ... Tony Boselli
1996 Keyshawn Johnson
... Kevin Hardy
1997 Orlando Pace
... Darrell Russell
1998 Peyton Manning
... Ryan Leaf
1999 Tim Couch ... Donovan McNabb
2000 Courtney Brown ... LaVar Arrington
2001 Michael Vick
... Leonard Davis
2002 David Carr ... Julius Peppers
2003 Carson Palmer
... Charles Rogers
2004 Eli Manning
... Robery Gallery
2005 Alex Smith
... Ronnie Brown
2006 Mario Williams
... Reggie Bush
2007 JaMarcus Russell ... Calvin Johnson
2008 Jake Long
... Chris Long
2009 Matthew Stafford
... Jason Smith
2010 Sam Bradford
... Ndamukong Suh
2011 Cam Newton
... Von Miller
Using my ratings, the 1st pick was better in 9 cases, the 2nd pick better in 7 cases, with 6 ties. Six times the 1st pick turned out significantly better, vs. four times the 2nd pick.
As far as I can see, there was a slight but not statistically significant advantage in picking 1st rather than 2nd. That result surprised me, as I thought there would be a clear advantage. You may disagree with some of my ratings (I valued long-term starting QBs like McNabb and Palmer higher than others might because the position is so important), but I don't think it makes a difference to the conclusion.
</div>
Great write-up! May I suggest you revise to include 3rd overall pick? Because this is probably the pick we are going to get.
Quote:Uhhh....NO! By your logic, the ATL Falcons should be unbeaten by now since they had the NFC best record last year, correct? Because you know, a 13-3 team + free agency + draft = improved team, right? That logic is flawed because there are too many variables to consider. Want more proof? Look at the Texans.
I'll give you another example, just look at the Jags and Chiefs last season. Both finished with a 2-14 records, yet one is top 5 team and the other is bottom is a 3 team. The difference is that the Chiefs were stacked team and the jags were rag team.
Could someone please actually answer my question: given this late into the season and that this team has a lot of holes to plug, what benefit is there to finish 4-14 and have the 3rd overall pick versus finish 2-14 and have the 1st overall pick to either get first dip at the pool of talents or trade down for more picks?
1. Yes, there are lots of variables.
2. Winning is always better than losing.
3. If you plan on watching a college game tomorrow instead of the Jags - you don't get it and you never will.
4. Winning is better than losing every time in every situation. Just ask Charlie Sheen.
5. Football is a game. The object of a game is to win the game.
6. It's a general manager's job to upgrade his roster through the draft and free agency. Due to the nature of the draft - Picking first compared to third rarely means any significant advantage. So why not let a battered fan base enjoy a few so-called "meaningless wins."
Quote:6. It's a general manager's job to upgrade his roster through the draft and free agency. Due to the nature of the draft - Picking first compared to third rarely means any significant advantage. So why not let a battered fan base enjoy a few so-called "meaningless wins."
Really? Let's ask MalabarJags to do another stats comparison that includes 3rd overall pick to see if what you say is really true.
Quote:Really? Let's ask MalabarJags to do another stats comparison that includes 3rd overall pick to see if what you say is really true.
LOL. In every draft there are several players who turn out to be impact players. They are selected at different spots and in different rounds. I happen to feel that Caldwell has the ability to identify talent and the ammunition to trade up if he feels it's necessary. I think he's very likely to get someone that's a long term impact player in the first round regardless of which pick position.
(I couldn't care less about #1 picks compared to #3 - that was a random example.)
Quote:
I thought the same thing, and did some research on 1st pick vs. 2nd to prove the point. I looked at all of the drafts since 1990. The 2012 and 2013 drafts were too recent to make a clear player evaluation, so I threw them out.
I've highlighted franchise quality picks in green (16 total), solid contributors in red (12), disappointments in black (16).
<div>
1990 Jeff George ... Blair Thomas
1991 Russell Maryland
... Eric Turner
1992 Steve Emtman ... Quentin Coryatt
1993 Drew Bledsoe
... Rick Mirer
1994 Dan Wilkinson
... Marshall Faulk
1995 Ki-Jana Carter ... Tony Boselli
1996 Keyshawn Johnson
... Kevin Hardy
1997 Orlando Pace
... Darrell Russell
1998 Peyton Manning
... Ryan Leaf
1999 Tim Couch ... Donovan McNabb
2000 Courtney Brown ... LaVar Arrington
2001 Michael Vick
... Leonard Davis
2002 David Carr ... Julius Peppers
2003 Carson Palmer
... Charles Rogers
2004 Eli Manning
... Robery Gallery
2005 Alex Smith
... Ronnie Brown
2006 Mario Williams
... Reggie Bush
2007 JaMarcus Russell ... Calvin Johnson
2008 Jake Long
... Chris Long
2009 Matthew Stafford
... Jason Smith
2010 Sam Bradford
... Ndamukong Suh
2011 Cam Newton
... Von Miller
Using my ratings, the 1st pick was better in 9 cases, the 2nd pick better in 7 cases, with 6 ties. Six times the 1st pick turned out significantly better, vs. four times the 2nd pick.
As far as I can see, there was a slight but not statistically significant advantage in picking 1st rather than 2nd. That result surprised me, as I thought there would be a clear advantage. You may disagree with some of my ratings (I valued long-term starting QBs like McNabb and Palmer higher than others might because the position is so important), but I don't think it makes a difference to the conclusion.
</div>
That is very solid work. I certainly wouldn't have put in the time to do it so kudos first and foremost. I would like say two things though. First, 9 to 7, and 6 to 4...roughly 30% of the time that's a very significant percentage in my opinion.
Second, I notice the greens and reds in the #1 picks are a lot of QBs, whereas the greens and reds for the #2 pick have none. If you need a franchise QB you want that #1 pick extra bad, because if the draft has a good franchise QB prospect he is going to go #1...and we sure as hell need a QB.
This actually convinces me even more that while it's selfishly great to wake up on Monday to a win, it's far better for the long term future of the franchise to have the #1 pick.
Quote:Uhhh....NO! By your logic, the ATL Falcons should be unbeaten by now since they had the NFC best record last year, correct? Because you know, a 13-3 team + free agency + draft = improved team, right? That logic is flawed because there are too many variables to consider. Want more proof? Look at the Texans.
I'll give you another example, just look at the Jags and Chiefs last season. Both finished with a 2-14 records, yet one is top 5 team and the other is bottom is a 3 team. The difference is that the Chiefs were stacked team and the jags were rag team.
Could someone please actually answer my question: given this late into the season and that this team has a lot of holes to plug, what benefit is there to finish 4-14 and have the 3rd overall pick versus finish 2-14 and have the 1st overall pick to either get first dip at the pool of talents or trade down for more picks?
There is no benefit unless you believe in that momentum crap. Lol momentum for a 4-12 team....blows my mind.