You're kidding, right? Realistically every single one of those players had SOME NFL production. And are all still productive players in the NFL. Gholston had ZERO NFL production. Not a single sack. Not a single forced fumble. Not a single table behind the LOS. Made a tremendous amount of $$ for zero production. Don't change the narrative, it's not about game changers. We got NOTHING out of Gholston where every other choice 2-5 would have given us some production. One more loss absolutely would have gotten us a infinitely better player. _
And what you're ignoring is what plenty of others have pointed out: draft well and it's not a problem. We could have taken Mayo at 6. Even if we lost one more game and got a higher pick, Mayo is probably the pick in a redraft. Sooo...
Holy crap nice red herring. There are 200 players we could have taken that would have been better than Gholston, that's an awful rationale for having a lower pick than having a higher pick. _
What your ignoring is we're the Jets. We DON'T draft well so having higher picks in every round makes that more likely that we draft better. For every team. It's a prospective analysis not retroactive. _
This is going nowhere. You think tanking rocks, I think drafting well rocks. In the draft YOU referenced with the situation YOU created, my theory held true. Don't know what more there is to discuss if you still don't see it.
Yes it is going no where because you are failing to acknowledge that having a higher pick rather than having a lower pick theoretically gives you a better chance to draft well, especially if you have competent people doing the drafting. It is a PROSPECTIVE analysis not a hind sight discussion. That's why its is a theoretical analysis. If Pee Wee Herman was the GM drafting first in 2012 and a team of Bill Walsh and Gil Brandt were drafting second, Pee Wee would have drafted better. Having a lower pick (i) gives you more options of players to choose from, (ii) a higher pick and more options in EVERY round and (iii) more or better ammo to trade up and/or trade down. What you are saying is, in a vacuum, you'd prefere to have a lower pick as opposed to a higher pick--in every round--just as long as you are very good at what you do. But if you are very good at what you do you'd STILL prefer to have the higher pick. So question for you. Would you rather be drafting 3rd this year in the first round and every round thereafter or would you prefer to be drafting 6th in the first round and 6th or 5th in every round thereafter. Or do you not care where you draft because...Tom Brady! _
The only situation in which a team can tank is if the Head Coach is safe from being fired; then he can put in the backups (who will do their best to win, but will presumably fail). Since Rex was going to get fired anyways, tanking was impossible. So why be mad that the Jets didn't tank? And no, an interim HC wouldn't address this problem. The interim HC would want to either (a) win enough games to give himself a shot of being made permanent, or (b) if that's not possible, win enough games that he impresses potential future employers.
I just dont believe that tanking would ever happen - there is no way any team would ever do it because if it became known that the order from on high was to deliberately lose (and nothing ever stays secret forever) then the NFL would have no option but to strip that franchise of every pick for the next 5 years to make an example of them plus the players are forever having to prove themselves, they wouldn't play like crap so that some rookie can come along and take their job from them I am not saying its a bad idea, last year I was praying for them to carry on losing, but I just don't think its a viable strategy
In theory, you have a great idea but in reality, the draft is a complete crapshoot and you never know who is going to be a star and who is going to bust. Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell are just 2 shining examples of that.
The Colts already did it. It may not have been on a coaching-level, but the front office definitely sabotaged that team once Manning got hurt. They didn't even try to get an adequate NFL-level QB to fill in. If they could have, they would have traded for Sanchez to screw it up even more.
Again, the Colts lost the first 13 games of that season and won 2 of their last 3 and put their draft position in jeopardy (Rams also finished 2-14), they just sucked without Manning. They also lost 5 of their games by 7 points or less They went out and got Kerry Collins when they could have just stayed put with Painter and Orlovski That's not tanking
What you are describing is the very essence of tanking ... they gave it a shot for three games with Collins (went 0-3), Collins got knocked out with a concussion and it gave them an excuse to say, "F--- it, we're going nowhere; blow it up and try to get Luck" ... which they did.
Then they won in weeks 15 and 16 and came within 4 points of beating Jacksonville in week 17 and being the 3rd overall pick, if they were tanking they got it backwards
As I stated earlier, players never tank, the coaches may have been tanking (and they may not have been tanking), but the front office most certainly was. No front office goes into a professional football game with Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovsky as their QB tandem unless they are hoping to lose.
Actually, I kinda think Idzik did ... right up until he realized he was on the hot seat too and traded for Harvin. I honestly believe Idzik started the season wanting to lose as many games as possible so he could fire Rex with no media interference. What he didn't count on was the media destroying him over it and no one clued him in that Woody would be swayed by the media until it was too late to do anything significant about the roster.
Do you think he planned on tanking just for the sake of Rex's firing or for a player he was eyeing in this years draft?
