Hey JHight...

[Aso]

2002 Raiders

2007 Raiders

[JeremyHight]

You're ignoring my previous post. Championships are too flukey and too small of a sample to determine success with. But teams with better records are more likely to win a super bowl than teams with worse records.

And it doesn't effect wins and losses as much because its a ratio, so (as you said) you're repeating both the wins and the losses, it balances out. But with playoff appearances and championships, its just a sum, so theres nothing to balance them out with.

... I went through and took out repeat seasons. Which is why instead of 100 seasons, they were out of 80 and 81, since any repeats were thrown out. I also threw out repeat championships and repeat playoff appearances.

[kyhadley]

We made it 5 so that a Super Bowl loser could have actually won a championship, ie. the Patriots. If you made it 3, only the 1st overall pick teams would have any championships what so ever.

Actually I made it five because any shorter and I dont think the sample size is big enough, and any longer and you're risking how related the records and the original event (super bowl appearance or #1 pick) actually are.

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

this is stupid because you aren't able to factor in the huge FA moves... the arguement being made was like when you said all those years of sucking and New Orleans got to and won a Super Bowl after they recently had a top 5 pick. fact of the matter is... the top 5 pick had barely any input, The new head coach, franchise QB in FA, TE, stud MLB, etc, etc are what got them where they are, not the early draft pick busts.

The argument was that we would all rather see our teams be successful, Super Bowl win or not, then to tank out and have high draft picks every year. its stupid.... The Raiders for example... were Super Bowl losers so they add to your stats, then 5 years after had a number 1 pick, and keep picking high, they are NO better from picking high. The Rams have been picking high since their Super Bowl loss.... they are not much improved and they don't look to be on their way to the Super Bowl anytime soon.

Fact of the matter is, high draft picks = spending high amount of dollars for players who usually are busts and don't pan out to be superstars, it cost your team money from all fronts. Making the playoffs attracts FA's, makes your team more money and successful as a franchise, as well as picking in the "safer" range of the draft from 24-32, where players have proven to panned out better in the long run.

[kyhadley]

Common logic is also commonly incorrect, as seen by the statistics in this thread.

The teams that won a championship were GREATLY impacted by their 1st overall picks. Orlando Pace was a huge piece for the Rams offense and was the best OT in football for several years. Troy Aikman lead the Cowboys as the 1st overall pick to 3 championships. Saying that one pick doesn't make a difference is a HUGE leap.

Sweet, how about going through every single other 1st pick and determining their impact, that might be a good way to do it.

... I went through and took out repeat seasons. Which is why instead of 100 seasons, they were out of 80 and 81, since any repeats were thrown out. I also threw out repeat championships and repeat playoff appearances.

And you got a difference of 4 to 1, which first of all are very small numbers. And second of all I don't think they're significant because of how flukey championships are.

But where they aren't flukey is that better teams tend to win them. Better teams also tend to have better records. And teams after losing super bowls have better records then teams with #1 picks.

[Champ]

So because of Mario Williams the Texas are going to win the Super Bowl this year?

[JeremyHight]

So here is the final breakdown to show the difference between the two over a 5 year span. I'm taking out repeat playoff appearances and championships, but leaving repeat wins and losses. This hurts my argument, but for the sake of fairness, here goes.

Over a five year span, you could expect...

SB Losers - 8-9 wins a year (leaning towards 9), roughly 2 playoff appearances (maybe 3), a 1% chance of winning the Super Bowl.

1st Pick - 7-8 wins a year, roughly 2 playoff appearances (possibly 1), and a 5% chance of winning a Super Bowl.

To me, they are almost identical except for the Super Bowl odds. A 4% difference doesn't seem like much, but when you increase your odds by 400% of winning something, that is a very big deal. In contrast, there is only an 8% increase in your chances of making the playoffs by being a Super Bowl loser,

All I am arguing is that the common logic that its better to lose a Super Bowl than get the 1st overall pick is not completely true and possibly completely wrong. If you gauge is based purely on wins, sure it is better to lose a Super Bowl. But if you are basing it on championships, which I prioritize, then it is better to get the 1st overall pick. By no means is anything guaranteed, but this is purely what the stats support.

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

So because of Mario Williams the Texas are going to win the Super Bowl this year?

Actually because of Tim Couch, Courtney Brown, Michael Vick, David Carr, Carson Palmer, Alex Smith, Mario Williams, Jamarcus Russell and Matt Stafford the Browns, Falcons, Texans, Bengals, 49ers, Raiders and Lions have all won recent Super Bowls.



wait...what?

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

JH... I'm a bit concerned about you man... you have the ultimate top 10 pick team... and NO Super Bowls... shit no recent even playoff appearances.... and you are arguing you would rather have a high pick? when the fuck do you plan on turning it around? How are these picks helping you?

[1ke]

I knida agree with JH. I only care about titles. Why else play. As a Bears fan, we got to the SB and lost. Good season yes, absolutely. Successful season....kinda. But they failed in the ultimate goal. And since the SB, the Bears have been very very mediocre and thats being nice. 9-7 8-8 and 7-9. (I think)

Its the worst possible position to be in. Not bad enough to get the top pick, and not good enough to play for anything. In sports, being in the middle is the worst possible spot. I get what he is saying, but it all depends on how you prioritize things. Look at the Eagles, every season with McNabb, you knew it was a playoff birth but nothing more.

[JeremyHight]

Actually because of Tim Couch, Courtney Brown, Michael Vick, David Carr, Carson Palmer, Alex Smith, Mario Williams, Jamarcus Russell and Matt Stafford the Browns, Falcons, Texans, Bengals, 49ers, Raiders and Lions have all won recent Super Bowls.



wait...what?

Again, you are not guaranteed anything. I never said "If you get the 1st pick, you are definitely going to win the championship" or even that you will definitely get to the playoffs or even have a winning season.

But the same can be said about losing a Super Bowl. In one case over the last 25 years, a team was able to lose a Super Bowl only to come back and win one within 5 years. But in every other case, teams have never been able to claim a championship. In one case, the team wasn't even able to get back to the playoffs. You have to look at the stats and say, what is likely to happen based on past events.

Now, I never will argue that there aren't other things that happen to effect whether or not a team wins it all. There are coaching changes, free agents, other draft picks, and injuries. There are tons of other variables. But like I originally argued, I think a team can do more with the 1st overall pick than with the 31st and the experience of losing a Super Bowl. The stats say that while the average 1st pick team has a lower amount of wins, they have a better chance to win the Super Bowl.

It all depends on what you prefer. While some hate the idea of mediocrity, if utilized correctly (which is a common trait shared by all championship teams on both sides), the draft picks can help a team win a championship. Whether it is the 1st overall pick in cases like Aikman and Pace or the 200+ pick in Tom Brady. I say that the first overall pick can dramatically improve a franchise and have more of an impact than losing a Super Bowl.

[Kuzzy Powers]

JH... I'm a bit concerned about you man... you have the ultimate top 10 pick team... and NO Super Bowls... shit no recent even playoff appearances.... and you are arguing you would rather have a high pick? when the fuck do you plan on turning it around? How are these picks helping you?

This is what makes this all the more baffling. The only thing I can think of is that because of all the losing, hes formulated this thought so that for him the Lions are no worse then any other team in the league that doesnt win the Super Bowl.

[JeremyHight]

JH... I'm a bit concerned about you man... you have the ultimate top 10 pick team... and NO Super Bowls... shit no recent even playoff appearances.... and you are arguing you would rather have a high pick? when the fuck do you plan on turning it around? How are these picks helping you?

This is what makes this all the more baffling. The only thing I can think of is that because of all the losing, hes formulated this thought so that for him the Lions are no worse then any other team in the league that doesnt win the Super Bowl.

Again, people want to try and point out the idea that "Oh, the Lions had good draft picks, so therefore, JH must think they are going to win." But I couldn't disagree more. Looking at the stats, no team is guaranteed anything.

I say that not only do you have to have a good draft pick, but you have to use it properly. Just like getting playoff or even Super Bowl experience is nice, but if you don't learn anything from it, it is useless. Did the Buccs and Browns gain anything from having 2 straight 1st overall picks? Not at all. Did the Cowboys and Rams gain anything from their picks? Yes, they each got Hall of Famers.

Did the Patriots gain anything from losing a Super Bowl? Yes, and quite a few of those key players were back to win it 5 years later. Did the Raiders? Not at all, they actually got dramatically worse because of it.

I again say that having the first overall pick and using it correctly is more beneficial than simply going to the Super Bowl and losing it.

[1ke]

I get it...

[SethMode]

Having the first round pick and "using it correctly" being better than going to the Super Bowl and losing it is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard.

Really!? Ya think!? Maybe making the best moves in FA as opposed to losing the Super Bowl is better too. Or signing the best coaches. Or getting the best support players. Are we serious with this shit?

If only someone had told the Bengals that Ki-Jana Carter would get injured! Boo!