This is what you said:

 

 

So what statistics show that "winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 pick". I mean if it's just stats 101, it should not be that difficult to show, right?

Yeah what you want is far too much research to do for a simple message board topic, but someone did note a stat that a #1 pick has gone on to win a super bowl 33% of the time. That is an overwhelmingly high % for one draft slot. 

---

Yeah what you want is far too much research to do for a simple message board topic

 

So I guess you just made it up.

---

;

;

I would love to see this list of top picks that have 'won' the Super Bowl. Because I sure can't pick them all out. And looking at some, I will guarantee you that some were backups when they 'won' the Super Bowl.

---

So I guess you just made it up.

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. 

---

'They' aren't going to do anything about it. As I said earlier on the inside no one is going to try less than 100% to win every game. From the outside we can say that is all well and good but it's just statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick. Big difference. 

 

 

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. 

 

Put words in your mouth? A quote you didn't make?

 

Those are your exact words.

 

statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick.

---

Put words in your mouth? A quote you didn't make?

 

Those are your exact words.

 

statistically winning a few late games is not as good as having the #1 overall pick.

Ok sorry, I've made a lot of posts on this threads...far more than intended. But my stat is just a universal fact of statistics. It applies to any situation where there is a variety or pool of options. If you are limited to any portion of that pool that isn't the entire thing then your chances of the best option go down. I really don't get why people are struggling with this it's the most obvious thing ever.

---

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.

Your not going to convince some of these old guys of the benefit of having 1st pick, I agree, but your wasting your breath here. Some don't see the big picture, only now, can't blame them though, no one wants to lose

---

Ok sorry, I've made a lot of posts on this threads...far more than intended. But my stat is just a universal fact of statistics. It applies to any situation where there is a variety or pool of options. If you are limited to any portion of that pool that isn't the entire thing then your chances of the best option go down. I really don't get why people are struggling with this it's the most obvious thing ever.

 

I'm certainly not arguing that point.  Having more choices is almost always better than having fewer choices.   My point was something different, which I know you have already read and understand, so I won't repeat it. 

---

Ok sorry, I've made a lot of posts on this threads...far more than intended. But my stat is just a universal fact of statistics. It applies to any situation where there is a variety or pool of options. If you are limited to any portion of that pool that isn't the entire thing then your chances of the best option go down. I really don't get why people are struggling with this it's the most obvious thing ever.

 

Of course you have better odds when you have a larger pool. I have not seen one person say otherwise.

 

But you are trying to claim that it is statistically better to get the first pick than to win games. I doubt you can prove that.

---

Of course you have better odds when you have a larger pool. I have not seen one person say otherwise.

 

But you are trying to claim that it is statistically better to get the first pick than to win games. I doubt you can prove that.

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 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. 

---

Firstly, Polian was only GM until 2009 and was only serving as team president at the time. Irsay was likely calling the shots, just as he made the final decision on Peyton. Most people have already accepted the fact that the Colts tanked, but you can believe what you want.

 

Don't you love message boards, where people can just make up things out of thin air, and then have the gall to say "most people have already accepted the fact" - a "fact" that they made up.

 

What a country. And thanks for letting me believe what I want.   

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Wrong.  Luke broke an ankle.  It will probably be stronger then ever when he comes back which will be by training camp. 

Interesting. Break it, and it gets stronger. Wonder if that logic works for erectile dysfunction??

---

Blakes Life Matters

Interesting. Break it, and it gets stronger. Wonder if that logic works for erectile dysfunction??

Having problems? lol

 

I'd advise not trying that!

---

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. 

 

You actually listed out a reason why winning is a good thing. You can see improved play from guys like Cyprien, Gratz, Branch, Pasztor as helping lead to these wins. 

 

Look at the wins as the effect instead of the cause.

---

I see the remaining games as win-win. If we, I'm happy. If we lose, better draft position, therefore I am happy too.

---

IF .... we get the "validation" that we got a good GM and HC, that would trump the #1 pick since I'm not 100% certain on Bridgewater. 

---

I see the remaining games as win-win. If we, I'm happy. If we lose, better draft position, therefore I am happy too.

 

Glass half empty ... lose lose situation. :teehee:

---

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?

---

I see the remaining games as win-win. If we, I'm happy. If we lose, better draft position, therefore I am happy too.

I root for the team to win but i've been as relaxed as i can ever remember watching games this seasons.  I really root for improvement and young developement, and don't really get either over excited or dissapointed.

---