So what you're saying is that you're OK with your team looking and behaving like a bunch of duchebags so long as they have a better chance of winning. You finally admitting to being a Pats troll?
Of course, you'd have to go through every round of every draft and look at who the worst team selected, since the top pick carries through to every round of the draft, not just the first. I'd venture to say there are dozens of teams that have benefitted from having a higher pick in every round of the draft.
OK maybe you don't tank on purpose but you use the last 2-3 games to give your 2nd/3rd and bench players some valuable NFL experience. Rest your starters just like the teams that have locked up home field do. Shoulda played Simms at the end of last year and sat players like Richardson/MoWilk/Decker and put Coples on the line where he belongs and let him play some 'fun' football. Start your 4th/5th/6th WRs and give them some 'real' experience. You might learn something about these guys you never would in practice or with them 'undressed' for the game. Treat it like the pre-season. Get your starters out of there before they get injured and load up on the bottom half of your lineup. Win the game(s) if at all possible but do it with your backups. Your team benefits by giving your bench some real game time AND you probably get a better selection in the draft.
in 1984 Bills drafted RB Greg Bell. do you mean 85 when they drafted Bruce Smith? if so, Jerry Rice went on the 16th pick, so tanking wasn't really necessary to land a great player. btw NE gave that pick up to the 49ers, who would've picked 30th. and in 89, Barry Sanders, Derrick Thomas, and Deion Sanders all went in round 1. plenty of value to be had by not tanking.. the key is drafting well, not tanking..
Not to mention the optionality in every round. Having a higher pick guarantees that you have more options open to you because a player you may have been coveting 1 player before you chose may still be there had you had that higher pick. _
I'm 1000% okay with it. And I'll go one step further ... the happiest I've been in the last decade as a Knicks fan is this year ... where they are clearly tanking to get one of the two centers. It might work, it might not work (they could lose the lottery). They might be Hall of Famers, they might flame out of the league. But at least it shows the people running the team know what needs to be done to finally be championship-competitive. One of us is trolling, but I'm not sure you've identified the correct person.
Yeah but had we tanked in 2007 and lost simply 1 more game we might have had a choice of Matt Ryan, Darren McFadden or Glenn Dorsey instead of Gholston. Can anyone argue that we would have not benefited from losing 1 more game? I can't figure it out but maybe we get the tie breaker with the Rams and possibly be drafting 2nd in a five player draft. _
Your response is not worth discussing because you probably don't remember but that's what everyone was calling it. Here's a hint-- there were not "only" 5 players in the draft. There were 252 players drafted. But there were universally acknowledged 5 prospective elite prospects and after that the fall off was precipitous. There were obviously players drafted later that had better careers than those top 5 but going into draft day, those were the five. The Jets were stuck with the leftovers at 6. Hence the term "5 player draft". _
1. I know with the term "five player draft" means. I'm not a moron. 2. This is still very debatable. There were more than 5 guys being hyped up heading into that draft. Shit, even Gholston had hype to rival the doubt. 3. I thought you were done talking about 2007 (2008 technically) and were talking about this years draft since we would have probably been tied with the Rams had we lost more games.
I don't recall there ever being any debate. The drop off after the first 5 was huge that year. We got stuck in the top of the second tier and we did a bad job. I never saw anyone having Gholston top 5. We missed out on much better players because of 1 win. _
