> TRUTH--you're considering unknowns. Variables.
> There's no way of knowing just how good either
> team would fair in the spring draft. You think
> giving them (Jets) one more win puts them in a
> better place to select a better player while
> losing to the Jets puts us in a better place to
> select a better player? That's all "what ifs."
Sorry colonel but I wholeheartedly disagree. where you pick in the draft isn't a "what if". Each slot has a recognized value that diminishes with each spot in the order.
That's an asset.
I want the best assets I can get going in to next year.
If I have the 12th pick I can trade that for the 20th pick and add an EXTRA selection in the 3rd round allowing me to get two players who may or may not have an impact on my team.
I'd rather have the opportunity to make that trade or to select from a list with 7 or 8 more of the best talents in the draft on it than a meaningless win that does nothing but put an arch rival in a better position to cure its QB woes.
> What if, the Jet's retain Ryan? What if...their
> QB becomes another Peyton Manning? What if he
> becomes Ryan Leaf? The possibilities are endless.
> Good, bad, somewhere in between? High draft picks
> don't ensure success....
Of course not. But its ridiculous to argue that there is no difference between picking 1st, 12th or 20th because the names and futures of the players selected in those spots is as yet undetermined and the possibilities are endless.
Its not about possibilities colonel, its about probabilities...that and one certainty...no matter who you select at 20, there are 8 fewer of the best talents in the draft to select from then there were at #12.
> "What's his name" in NE never has an early pick,
> yet he's seem to fill positions of need, makes his
> team perform, makes appropriate adjustments to his
> game plan and wins a division annually. It's more
> than having an early pick in the draft or foiling
> some other team's draft pick. Filling the team
> with talent now that takes a good eye.
Of course you need a GM who can evaluate talent. Even Belechick needs that. His draft record is spotty at best since Pioli and company left town. In fact Belechick takes the shotgun approach to drafting. He takes his first round asset and trades down multiple times adding additional picks in the current and future drafts. He does that from the back end of the 1st round each year. Imagine the additional picks he's stockpile if he started off with a top ten pick.
Even with all those picks he still misses a lot. You take Brady off that team and he's an average coach.
But that doesn't change the fact that its about managing assets. Players are assets, salary cap space is an asset, draft picks are assets and the higher the pick the bigger the asset.
Meaningless wins in an already lost season are NOT assets for building a contender in any way shape or form.
In fact, we'd be much better suited to sit guys like Tannehill, Landry, Miller, Vernon, etc and not risk a serious injury to a guy who could help us actually win games of importance in December next year.
I don't have any issues with fans saying "i want to win cause I hate to lose" or because "they hate the idea of losing to the Jets." But there is no question that we are far better off losing this week than winning.
Do you think Hartline might just be having a bad year?
Also, it was well known, certainly by other teams as well, that Hartline was Tanny's favorite target. When that happens, opposing teams make it their first priority to take that receiver out of the play and see if the QB can hit someone else.
I want us to win because it helps the present players on our roster to build confidence and cohesion. It allows the team to further work on schemes and get a better handle on what works and what does not work...against a usually tough adversary. It allows our coaches to gain more information and insight into how to do things and to get the team in a better position to win next season.
As far as the draft goes...as long as we pick players that contribute and help the team get into a better position to win going forward I'm OK with whatever position we slot into. If we end up with a higher pick then great, but I'll give that up every time for a win right now. There are always players that excel right out of the box and they are not always the ones that are drafted the highest.
You can't intentionally tank games just to try and get a better draft pick. Do that even once and you lose all respect from the players and the rest of the organization. If you're going to preach all year long to the players that the goal is to win every game, and "take it one game at a time and win next week's game", you can't just turn that off in the last game without outing yourself as a total hypocrite. It also communicates to the players that you don't respect them, the fans, the game, or anything else. Doing that would be a horrible, horrible, brain-dead mistake.
Doctor Feelgood Wrote:
> You can't intentionally tank games just to try and
> get a better draft pick. Do that even once and
> you lose all respect from the players and the rest
> of the organization. If you're going to preach
> all year long to the players that the goal is to
> win every game, and "take it one game at a time
> and win next week's game", you can't just turn
> that off in the last game without outing yourself
> as a total hypocrite. It also communicates to the
> players that you don't respect them, the fans, the
> game, or anything else. Doing that would be a
> horrible, horrible, brain-dead mistake.
Nobody is suggesting we tank. We are just debating what we as fans should be rooting for.
> You can't intentionally tank games just to try and
> get a better draft pick. Do that even once and you
> lose all respect from the players and the rest of
> the organization.
> Seems to me like the whole entire Colts
> organization did just that in order to get Andrew
> Luck. Those f'ers magically go from the worst team
> in the NFL straight to the playoffs 3 years in a
> row as if they have a magic wand. What a nice
> Funny how they were just fine letting Curtis
> Painter stink it up for them for an entire season
> in Manning's absence. I'm pretty sure they could
> have found some FA who could play better but they
> didn't even make an effort to look for one. Curtis
> Painter? Seriously? Is that dude even on an NFL
> roster anymore? I wonder what 7-11 store they
> borrowed him from for that one shot deal.
> Ya know, I don't trust Jim Irsay as far as I can
> spit. Good for his ass that he got busted with a
> shitload of narcotic pills and a big ole' duffle
> bag full of money in his car. Haven't had to see
> all his drunk ass tweets on PFT ever since.
That's an interesting scenario.
I don't think that the players were trying to tank.
I doubt that the coaches were either, since they got fired after the season.
But you can make the argument that the GM and Owner were clearly tanking since they knew how bad Peyton's injury was, that he wouldn't play at all that year and they went out and signed the worst back up QB(s) possible. Smart move on their part. They knew the season was lost without Manning. Instead of fighting to finish 6-10 like us, they packed it in hoping for the first pick but knowing they could always bring Manning back the next year if they didn't get Luck.
If we are smart we sit out important players for next year and play their back ups.
Sit RT and play Moore. Give him a chance to make money on the FA market with a good game.
Sit Wallace and Landry. Start Matthews and Hazell.
> Explain chyren, who tanked the season and how? Was
> it the players, coaches, owner or GM? Once you
> tell me who tanked then you might be able to
> explain how they did it.
It started when Roger Goodell convinced his godson Peyton Manning and his Doctor to fake a serious neck injury in exchange for the promise to get Manning to Denver to play for his idol John Elway... it gets weird after that...
So I take it by your response you have no logical explanation of who tanked the season and how, it's real easy to keep saying it over and over again.....its far more difficult to back it up with any sane explanation of who/how/why I guess.
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> > So I take it by your response you have no
> > explanation of who tanked the season and how,
> > real easy to keep saying it over and over
> > again.....its far more difficult to back it up
> > with any sane explanation of who/how/why I
> No. The question is DID THEY TANK THE
> I say: YES!
> You say: PROOF, PLEASE!!!
> I point to their record
> YOU SAY: "Okay, I can't explain that! But let's
> not talk about proof anymore,....now I want you to
> tell me who precisely did the tanking."
> I reply: "Are you CONCEDING THAT SOMEONE TANKED
> THE SEASON BUT YOU JUST WANT ME TO TELL YOU WHO?"
> The ball is in your court.
Why do I have to explain anything, I'm not the one making ridiculous claims without having any logical explanation of how it was done. Your numbers mean absolutely nothing, there's been plenty of first-to-worse and worse-to-first scenarios in the NFL to explain the Colts records, our own Dolphins did it by adding Pennington not so long ago. Funny how you say the whole country new this was going on, yet there was no FBI investigation or any congressional hearings about it.
Oh, the numbers mean nothing but you are asking me to point the blame if I can. Soooo, let's see, objective numbers mean nothing but if I gave you a theory on who was sucking for Luck on the Indianapolis team THAT WOULD MEAN SOMETHING TO YOU?????????????????//
I think not!!!
I think you would sit back and try to tear apart any theory I came up with.
but WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT, AND I give you a team with a 10 plus win record a thousand years before that pick came up and that same team has a ten plus record the next year and a thousand years afterwards, you say that "means nothing" in suggesting that the Colts were "sucking for Luck."