-
-
You don't have anything to back this up. Nothing. In fact, we have shown the exact opposite. We don't have a huge sample size, but over 80 team's seasons of compiled data is more than the zero data you are backing up your final point with.
Again, its not just about winning 1 more game a season, so therefore, they are better. 1 more game a season isn't that much. On the other hand, winning a championship IS a big difference and is a notable accomplishment. That is why they are counted and why they should continue to be counted.
I am not arguing that you can have a better record in the regular season by being a Super Bowl loser. Congrats, normally the team who has the #1 overall pick had the worst record in the sport, so the next year, they aren't going to instantly be a 10 win team. In fact, they probably won't even have a winning record the next season. On the other hand, the Super Bowl loser had a team good enough to make the playoffs the previous year and win several games, of course they are going to do better in the years following than a team that was futile enough to get the 1st overall pick.Comment
-
Honestly, any other team who made that many high picks would have been good. We had a shot at several very good players, but decided to consistently draft skill position players and linebackers who fell out of the first round due to injury or skill concerns thinking we could turn them around. If the Lions had instead focused on offensive and defensive lines, I think we could have done a lot better. Again, it isn't even always about getting a super star, but in the Lions case, it would have been nice to even get players who are still in the league.
Getting good draft picks isn't a guarantee of future success, but neither is getting to a Super Bowl.Comment
-
So any fan in their right mind would take the the 5 years for the Rams from 2001-2005 where they made the playoffs 3 times and even a Super Bowl over the 5 years from 1996-2000 where they were only getting 4-6 wins a season, but because of having the #1 overall pick, they were able to win the championship in 1999? Again, you keep talking about a 1 year span, but it is a process.Comment
-
You screwed up the years, because the Rams won the SB in 1999 and made the playoffs in 2000, but I get what you are saying.
And yes, I easily would rather relive 2000-2004 playoff years, and SB loss, than go through the bullshit i'm watching now, or the period from 90-98 where we were terrible.
Excuse me for wanting to ENJOY football, and not hate my life every Sunday. How illiogical.Comment
-
Yeah fuck the stats.. I like to fucking win. Only one team can win every year, but doesnt mean only that team had a good, successful year. Competing every week is what I want my team to do.. never at any point do I want my team to be the worst because being the worst fucking BLOWS. I want to compete and go to the playoffs. The ultimate goal is to win a SB, but its not the end all and be all of a successful season. But finishing last will always be finishing last.. and at no point is that satisfactory to me, I dont care how many fucking draft picks its going to result in.Comment
-
It's got nothing to do with the Number one overall pick. It's more to do with the complete organisation rebuild that comes (or does not come) along with having such a crap season.
The Patriots in 93 and the Jets in 97 got Bill Parcells while the Colts got Bill Polian. The Bengals retained Dave Shula. The Rams in 1997 got Dick Vermiel, the Giants in 2004 got Tom Coughlin. Meanwhile the Browns in 1999 and 2000 chose and stuck with Chris Palmer.Don't Sit Down 'Cause I've Moved Your ChairComment
-
So a team is more willing to make the drastic changes it takes to win when they have the 1st pick, while teams who went to the Super Bowl are more likely to stick with what only got them 2nd in the first place and never break through to win it all. Again, this is just making the case for 1st overall pick even more.
Look at the Bears, they got 2nd in a relatively luck filled season (close wins, few injuries, all sorts of unconventional TDs) and then changed nothing in the coming years and of course, never came close to the same success. On the other hand, the Rams got the 1st pick, revamped their coaching staff, acquired other talent, and put together a team that was able to win it all.
The 1st pick helps an organization revamp to better compete, while all a Super Bowl does is make you think you can catch lightning in a bottle again when all it did was get you 2nd place.Comment
-
Superbowl losers are still good and usually still will make the playoffs years later which is why they have a higher playoff appearance number. Then with teams with #1 overall picks, there are teams that have bad draft choices and remain bad and then teams that draft correctly with that high draft choice ends up having one of the best players in the league at that position which is usually a QB and if you have an elite QB the chances you'll win a championship is really high. This is why they have more Superbowls wins and why they have slightly less wins per season. It ends up for the most part evening out.
Comment
-
Nobody agrees with you, and nobody cares about your lame, contrived, i'll-make-up-something-that-fits-my-argument statictical garbo.
You are the only one who would rather have the #1 pick than lose the SB. People think you're nuts. Because on this topic, you are.
The Cowboys winning 3 SB's while they just so happened to have three #1's proves nothing, and your other champ, the Rams, traded for the pick. There is no trend, no hard evidence, you have nothing.
It largely evens out, like Aso said.
You prefer losing. I guess it's a good thing you're a Lions fan, worked out well for you.Comment
-
Hey, I'll take some losing seasons if it means getting a championship out of it. You would rather be the Buffalo Bills, close, but no cigar, and then fade into nothing because you never made the changes it takes to win it all. I'd rather win a championship then just be good for a couple seasons, but hey, that is just me.Comment
Tweet
Comment