I am a firm believer that once U are eliminated from the POs U should lose all U remaining games since the theory goes that the nearer to the #1 pick U have the faster the team will improve. As a example this past season we won 2 games near the end of the season which meant NOTHING whatsoever since we had been eliminated from the big dance many games before those 2 wins. Just spit balling here but maybe if we had finished 2-14 instead of 4-12 the player we would have chosen a player that would have made a immediate impact on the team vs the #6 pick we wound up because of those 2 wins late in the season which meant zero to us except to give us a later pick then we would have had if we had tanked those 2 games we won
SMH Champ, we can still get an impact player at 6. Why would you care anyway? we all know we will see a signature that says TB and MM are now 0-1 in regards to a VLT
All U who disagree with what I posted should watch the beginning of Draft Day where they talk about the Brownie fans because they are talking about fans who lack common sense which in MHO all of U above this post also lack
There is no one in this draft that is "tank-worthy". Sorry Mariota and Winston fans but these guys are not going to be Luck. I tend to lose interest once my teams are eliminated from playoff contention , but I cant remember ever rooting for them to lose. Just moreso not caring whether then win or lose. Straight up , teams with good GM's and scouting departments make good selections no matter where they are drafting. And teams with poor ones tend to make poor picks which is why you see the same teams picking early every year.
Well, Jamarcus Russell wasn't exactly a great pick. Mr. Irrelevant that year was better than him. Sheldon Richardson was selected at overall 13 and he's a lot better than guys taken before him. Anyways there's an ethical issue here too: you don't tank games for any reason. It's not good for the game or good for the team. As a fan I live and die with my team. Losing on purpose is a bad idea. Even if your premise is right which it isn't. I'll take the Ws which count on our historical record which is important to me. Some day I hope the Jets will be over.500 (all time won and lost record). We are about 75 games under .500 and you want to lose games on purpose!
Champ, I am with you my man... If we are going to suck...We should SUCK HARD (thats what she said ) Anyways, I agree that I wanted last season to be a full blown tankamania. Any shot a potential franchise QB is important. The Colts tanked their way to Andrew Luck and man that has worked out. I only do think the tanking would be appropriate if a franchise QB is available. Other then that it is hard to convince 53 guys to go out there and suck. They are all playing for their livelihood.
To those that favor tanking....why would a player - who competes at the highest level - ever tank a game? These guys are playing for their future and next contract. Tanking would cost them money and jobs would be lost as well. What does any coach or player care where the team is drafting the next season? They look at the draft as the team finding a guy to replace them!
You know. I am probably the only person who is willing to admit he saw that movie in the theater. Sadly. I know people who saw it who refuse to admit this terrible fact.
Rex and Idzik were fired after going 4-12. What incentive did they have to go 2-14? They wouldn't help their own team. In fact, tanking would have helped Rex's future rival team. Football teams are too large, too complex, and too bureaucratic to make tanking a viable tactic. Players are always going to play for their next paycheck; coaches will always coach for their next job. There's only so much an owner can do, unlike in the NBA.
