It's possible that a team is trying to minimize wins using roster moves and crushing morale of the team, like the Colts appeared to do before they drafted Luck, but it is not likely or even obvious in most teams and if you want to point out examples then I'd like to see them.
we wouldn't have been 1st overall, the highest we could have been was 2 and we probably take Bush or Young at #2. Thankfully we didn't tank.
Organizations may not always be trying to win those meaningless games at the end but the players are. It's not about tanking purposefully it's about fans hoping the team is bad enough that they are incapable of winning the game with the goal of getting a higher pick. But for fans with that loser mentality that think the only way to be great is to be awful first so you can be excited about the draft, your position is entirely speculative. There's no guarantee that the player drafted one or two spots ahead is going to be the better player or franchise changing player, so ultimately your goal isn't about winning in the future it is just to be excited about "winning" the draft. I'll take winning actual games over wanting to be excited about the draft.
NEVER root for your team to lose? Not true. Being happy about winning meaningless games for the purpose of instant gratification is short-sighted. Players will always try to win when they take the field, but as fans we look at the big picture and consider what's best for future success. Nothing wrong with wanting the Jets to lose if the season is already in the toilet. Ever hear of "Loss Leaders" in the world of business? Same idea. Companies take losses intentionally on certain products to set themselves up for long term profits on others. They'll price Xbox units at a loss because they know they'll make that money back, plus a TON more when the owners buy game after game with huge profit margins. They're strategizing for the BIG picture. Same as fans who want to lose one meaningless game if it sets us up for more wins in the future. I have no problem with that and it doesn't make them bad fans. That said, I have to admit ... I find it IMPOSSIBLE to root for the Dolphins to beat us. Just can't do it. But I can totally understand fans that can.
for me, from a stands point of view winning a 'pointless' game that knocks the team out of a potential #2 pick and being excited about the win is kind of like being excited because you got a date with Miss America from 1932. From a players and coaching point of view you play to win the game period, I wouldn't want that any other way..but when your talking about getting excited as a fan about being a 4 win team instead of a 2 or 3 win team....Beer goggles.
Too funny how this thread has gone from being about lamenting winning meaningless games to wanting your team to tank. As if a fans rooting interest has any effect on the outcomes of games or as if said fans are hoping the franchise actively "tanks". Nice red herring folks. _
The OP was basically about a fan being happy the team won while many fans were hoping the team lost. Try to keep up.
NEVER root for your team to lose. we cannot control wins and losses so why would I ever root for my team to lose?
That's the problem with fandom, fans think they know how to run a team so they root for the outcome that suits their deluded scenario, many times that means they are rooting for a draft pick that they will obsess over for months after the season ends even though it defeats the purpose of being the fan of a team.
the biggest red herring, though, is the argument that losing will equate to winning in the future by getting the better player in the draft. players drafted don't actually end up the better players in the league in the order they are drafted, so there is no need to worry about drafting 6 rather than 2. the whining about draft position is only meaningful if a player drafted at 6 can't possible be as good or better than the player drafted at 2 simply because he was drafted afterwards, and that is just a false assertion so the desire to lose isn't about some longer term outlook for the team's success as some people are trying to claim in this very thread and criticize others for not having, because the Jets could end up with the best player in the draft at 6. they simply want to be excited about having the most options in the draft. But the most options doesn't lead to future success, making the right single selection does. an actual victory is tangible and real excitement. the excitement about the draft is speculative and not about future wins and losses.
This is such an easy argument to win for the draft whiners. Surely in the last 30 years an overwhelming amount of the Super Bowl winners should have drafted 1 or 2 within 5 years prior to winning the Super Bowl if it is such as necessity. If that isn't enough time to validate your argument, then 10 years prior. Have at it.
No, it's not a red herring because the argument has nothing to do with looking at the draft retrospectively but rather looking at it prospectively. There is no guarantee that drafting a guy at 1 will be better than 2, just like there is no guarantee that drafting a guy number 2 will be better than a guy drafting 1. The draft is a crap shoot. But when presented with the optionality, it is beyond arguing that you'd RATHER have the lower pick than the higher pick. Of course you can find guys that are BETTER lower in the draft--it undoubtedly has happened a million times since the beginning of draft time. Just as you can ALSO find better players HIGHER in the draft than you can lower in the draft. It's a question of what would you prefer? If you tell me you'd PREFER to pick lower than higher (in every round mind you) and that you'd PREFER to diminish or cut off some of your optionality PROSPECTIVELY than I would say, respectfully, that you are full of shit. Honest question. Would you rather be drafting at 3 in the first round and every round thereafter or drafting 6 in every round and every round thereafter? Would you rather have the CHOICE of Mariota, Cooper and Fowler or the ability to trade out of that spot to someone who clearly desires them or would you rather potentially not have the choice of any of them? Or was a meaningless win or 2 enough of a payoff that you're perfectly content NOT having the better options available--"meh, fuck it, we'll get a good player down the line, happens all the time". _
While I agree you can find talent anywhere in the draft you generally cannot find QBs anywhere in the draft, certainly not this one. Now we just may get lucky and have a blue chip QB prospect fall into our laps but I'd certainly be feeling better if we were sitting in that 2 spot.
No you absolutely can. You know how I know? Because 3 - 1/2 decades ago the 49ers found Montana in the third and 15 years ago the Pats found Brady in the 6th. Oh yeah, Kurt Warner and Tony Romo herp derp. Happens ALL the time. _
it does happen all the time, most of the SB winning QBs have been non 1st rounders or late 1st rounders. Not many have ben top 5-10 picks.
I already stated it is about options, but that isn't the argument being made. The argument being made is losing is better because it will lead to long term success and therefore those happy about the wins don't have a long term view. That's false and a red herring.
