Hey JHight...

[mgoblue2290]

Ask the Cowboys if the 2 years as bottom dwellers were worth it in order to start a string of championships. Ask the Rams if the 5 year span where they went from only getting 5 wins a season to Super Bowl champions were better than the 5 years following where they would make the playoffs, but would never win another title.

Ask the Lions if 10 years at the bottom was worth...oh wait, never mind.

 

[JeremyHight]

Ugh would you stop missing my point. Ready its about to come again...here it is....

(I'll even simplify it some more.)

Super bowl losers record > #1 pick getters record

Higher record = higher chance at winning superbowl

therefore,

Super bowl losers chance at winning super bowl > #1 pick getters chance at winning super bowl

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.

 

[JeremyHight]

Ask the Lions if 10 years at the bottom was worth...oh wait, never mind.

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.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Getting good draft picks isn't a guarantee of future success, but neither is getting to a Super Bowl.

Right.

Which is exactly why any fan in their right mind would rather get to a SB.

 

[JeremyHight]

Right.

Which is exactly why any fan in their right mind would rather get to a SB.

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.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.

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.

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

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.

 

[citizenerased]

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.

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.

 

[JeremyHight]

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.

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.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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 you get it, man? The Cowboys won a bunch of SB's, and happened to have three consecutive #1 picks. THAT'S STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.

 

[JeremyHight]

Don't you get it, man? The Cowboys won a bunch of SB's, and happened to have three consecutive #1 picks. THAT'S STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.

Keep arguing your point with zero factual evidence to back it up. Common knowledge is commonly wrong.

 

[Aso]

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.

 

[JeremyHight]

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.

QFT.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Keep arguing your point with zero factual evidence to back it up. Common knowledge is commonly wrong.

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.

 

[JeremyHight]

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.

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.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.

But neither of those roads have a significant edge on the other. So yeah, i'd rather be good and actually enjoy Sunday afternoons.

Your entire theory hinges on the Cowboy dynasty. You have nothing else. No trends. No patterns. Nothing.

 

[JeremyHight]

But neither of those roads have a significant edge on the other. So yeah, i'd rather be good and actually enjoy Sunday afternoons.

Your entire theory hinges on the Cowboy dynasty. You have nothing else. No trends. No patterns. Nothing.

Yet, if not for 1 team, the Patriots, the Super Bowl runner ups wouldn't have had a single championship in the modern era. But hey, continue to say my whole argument is based on one team, while your whole argument would be shit if not for one team that has since been proven to have cheated in that Super Bowl. :yep:

 

[kyhadley]

I don't really want to bump this thread, but I was curious and I sent an email about this topic to football outsiders the other day and here's the response I got:

Kyle,

I think it's way too broad of a concept to measure in the way that
you're measuring. The truth, for better or worse, is that it's only
good to have the number-one pick if there's an excellent player
available that justifies the cost. That's not always the case.

-Bill Barnwell

for what it's worth

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

All but one of the championships on the jhight side came from a team that had THREE CONSECUTIVE #1 picks, and the lone remaining championship came from a team that traded for the #1.

Its a wash, neither side has any sort of real measurable edge here, so obviously as a fan its better to make a SB trip, and have higher likelyhood of being good moving forward, than be terrible and suffer through a brutal season. Its as close to a no brainer as it gets. Of course you'd want to see your team win games and be successful.

It would be like if we found out that the #11 pick produced the most titles within x amount of years, by some marginal percentage. I mean, who gives a shit? It means nothing.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Neither side has a compelling arguement and its a pretty stupid debate in the first place imo. Looking at the stats, doesn't appear to be much difference and as a Titans fan I can tell you that the Super Bowl loss is still the greatest (and painful lol) memory and I'd rather have getting there and losing than having the first pick in the hope that it leads to a Super Bowl.