Quote:It's fun to watch this play out every year. The same song and dance by the same cast of characters.
I read these threads and remember many of these same knuckleheads saying the same thing about Jevan Snead a few years ago.
They wanted the Jags to use their FIRST ROUND PICK on the guy and gushed like groupies all season long for the guy.
Imagine that. The year and the name of the QB changes, but the song and dance always remains the same.
I give the "knuckleheads" credit for being willing to have their own opinion on a player, whether or not that player turns out to be great or fails.
To me, that's preferable to one who avoids having a take on a player and rubber stamps everything the team does and take pot shots at those who have the courage of conviction and the willingness to take their lumps when they are wrong.
What's winning a meaningless 1-2-3 games and missing out on our franchise QB?
The year we beat the Clots and secured Andrew Luck for them.
The Clots were in full tank mode to get Luck. Curtis Painter at QB----REALLY???
We all want to see what's best for this team, if having one terrible season 1-15 - 0-16 season can secure the best QB in this draft class, I'm all for it. We're tired of mediocrity at the most important position on the football field-----QB.
I believe this will be the next golden age of QB's in this draft class... It's time we get our's.
Quote:Hard to pinpoint when. But it'd be nice to have a pick of all the quarterbacks for once instead of having to take the leftovers.
2012 - Russell Wilson, 3rd round, 75th overall.
2011 - Colin Kaepernick, 2nd round, 36th overall.
Sometimes leftovers aren't so bad.......
Quote:1. When did it start for you? Was it at 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, etc? Just curious.
2. Will it be and has it always been this way for you all along?
3. If we get Bridgewater and we go 0-2 or up to 0-6 next year are any wins after "meaningless"?
4. How many wins do we have to have out of the first six games to make any after worthwhile and not tank again?
Edit to clearly define seperate questions.
1) When we didn't take a QB in the last draft.
2) Yes.
3) No. Because then we are starting to put our real roster together.
4) Not about wins. About having a franchise QB to build around.
Anything else?
Quote:2012 - Russell Wilson, 3rd round, 75th overall.
2011 - Colin Kaepernick, 2nd round, 36th overall.
Sometimes leftovers aren't so bad.......
Both are pretty meh QBs now that the read option is getting shut down. Same goes for RG3.
Quote:I give the "knuckleheads" credit for being willing to have their own opinion on a player, whether or not that player turns out to be great or fail.
To me, that's preferable to one who avoids having a take on a player and rubber stamps everything the team does and take pot shots at those who have the courage of conviction and the willingness to take their lumps when they are wrong.
Word.
Quote:What's winning a meaningless 1-2-3 games and missing out on our franchise QB?
The year we beat the Clots and secured Andrew Luck for them.
The Clots were in full tank mode to get Luck. Curtis Painter at QB----REALLY???
We all want to see what's best for this team, if having one terrible season 1-15 - 0-16 season can secure the best QB in this draft class, I'm all for it. We're tired of mediocrity at the most important position on the football field-----QB.
I believe this will be the next golden age of QB's in this draft class... It's time we get our's.
Truth.
Quote:2012 - Russell Wilson, 3rd round, 75th overall.
2011 - Colin Kaepernick, 2nd round, 36th overall.
Sometimes leftovers aren't so bad.......
Both good, neither great. Yet. Both have the aire of already having reached their ceilings.
Quote:1) When we didn't take a QB in the last draft.
2) Yes.
3) No. Because then we are starting to put our real roster together.
4) Not about wins. About having a franchise QB to build around.
Anything else?
Pretty much this. ^^^
Quote:The Clots were in full tank mode to get Luck. Curtis Painter at QB----REALLY???
I know this is pretty much common sense, but for some reason it made me laugh so hard. Painter was so bad to watch
I'm hoping we win about 4 games at the end of the season. Just enough to put us out of reach of the top tier and into that big drop off in talent in the draft. Seems like we've done that several times under Gene Smith.
How awful would it be to have the first pick of the draft - I mean, the choice of picking Bridgewater or trading down and amassing more picks - that would just destroy the franchise!!
1. About halftime of the Rams game (0-4 on the way to 0-5).
2. No. I used to have hope the offense would be watchable. (I should clarify I have no doubt the team is not actually tanking. The record is mainly an accurate representation of the roster skill.)
3. No. There will be no need to tank next year no matter the record. I find it difficult to believe the Jaguars could replicate this kind of offensive ineptitude with a new signal caller. I would certainly expect a learning curve but I would figure if we are still in 0-fer territory again the Jaguars ought to take a hard look at the offensive playcalling first.
4. Again, tanking will not be necessary in successive years.
Quote:If the team gets Bridgewater, at that point the new regime has started and you don't want losses. Bridgewater would get till the 3rd year in my book, before I would go down the path of tanking for draft picks.
Thats irrelevant anyway, since theres very little chance Bridgewater fails
. The only way Bridgewater fails is due to injury, not talent.
Just like Dan Lefour or whatever his name was?
Quote:I understand your point, but I'd like to put this into perspective.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/
The 49ers we have seen over the last three years were built through the draft.
However, the last three years of 49ers' contention were preceded by EIGHT (8) consecutive years of .500 football and worse between 2003-2010. During that time, they had one record of .500 (2009) , one NFL worst record of 2-14 (2004), a 4 win, 5 win, 6 win, and 7 win season.
The draft position gained from 2004 enabled them to land QB Alex Smith first overall and RB Frank Gore.
The draft position gained from the 4-12 season of 2005 enabled them to draft TE Vernon Davis 6th overall in 2006.
The 7-9 record of 2006 gave the 49ers the 11th overall draft pick in 2007, which enabled them to draft Patrick Willis.
Other losing seasons led to the drafting of Anthony Davis, Michael Crabtree and Aldon Smith.
Every single player I listed were key contributors in their ascent to a Super Bowl team.
Yes, winning teams draft well and have a knack for finding contributors later in the draft. However, it is undeniable the 49ers were aided by superior draft position in the accumulation of talent.
I always appreciate the knowledge. Thanks for sharing the insight above. I respect your point of view and have missed reading your thoughts the last few weeks.
With that said, I don't think my assertion is off base compared to your assessement. When considering record and draft spots, I can see your point. But you must remember my post was based on the OP's question to those that are leaning towards us "tanking" for a specific player. I've been hearing many well regarded posters as well as out spoken moderators imply or overtly state that securing the #1 pick is the only objective of this team. I brought up the 49'ers because of thier lack of talent and there continued push for competition.
In terms of philosophy and organizational direction, I feel my point still stands. The 49'ers were in major turmoil, as you have mentioned. This turmoil allowed them to have high draft picks. However, I would argue it was not the plan of the organization to "Tank" in order to solidify 'x' draft spot in order to propel the team to contention. They stayed true to pride and tradition, they muddled through tough times, drafted well while never consciously trying to solidify a higher draft position.
Yes they had several years of high draft picks. But so have we. You hit and you miss. But I don't ever recall during the 49'ers lost decade the term "tank" the way I hear on this MB. And I know that the 49'ers never would try to "suck for Luck" the way the clot ownership did. That type of direction should not be lauded like some have here.
If I have misinterpreted your thoughts feel free to let me know.
Quote:I always appreciate the knowledge. Thanks for sharing the insight above. I respect your point of view and have missed reading your thoughts the last few weeks.
With that said, I don't think my assertion is off base compared to your assessement. When considering record and draft spots, I can see your point. But you must remember my post was based on the OP's question to those that are leaning towards us "tanking" for a specific player. I've been hearing many well regarded posters as well as out spoken moderators imply or overtly state that securing the #1 pick is the only objective of this team. I brought up the 49'ers because of thier lack of talent and there continued push for competition.
In terms of philosophy and organizational direction, I feel my point still stands. The 49'ers were in major turmoil, as you have mentioned. This turmoil allowed them to have high draft picks. However, I would argue it was not the plan of the organization to "Tank" in order to solidify 'x' draft spot in order to propel the team to contention. They stayed true to pride and tradition, they muddled through tough times, drafted well while never consciously trying to solidify a higher draft position.
Yes they had several years of high draft picks. But so have we. You hit and you miss. But I don't ever recall during the 49'ers lost decade the term "tank" the way I hear on this MB. And I know that the 49'ers never would try to "suck for Luck" the way the clot ownership did. That type of direction should not be lauded like some have here.
If I have misinterpreted your thoughts feel free to let me know.
Well, as I read your post to which I replied, I'm not sure if I "disagreed" in the strongest, truest sense of the word.
I guess my goal was to make the point that draft position has its advantages in rebuilding efforts, and to the extent that "tanking" helps to secure superior draft position, there is an argument to be made for tanking. Admittedly, my execution of that position was lacking.
However, you correctly identified the missing link in my argument-namely that there is considerable difference between legitimately losing due to bad drafting, attrition, etc., vs. "tanking." To the extent sports leagues generally and the NFL in particular operate under competitive ethical norms, I imagine tanking to be a most dubious departure from those ethical norms.
I do not allege the 49ers tanked to obtain the draft position to get the players I listed above. For that matter, I do not allege the Jaguars have tanked or are currently tanking to secure draft position. Any of us can look at the Jaguars poor drafting over the past decade and see the correlation between poor drafting and our sad state of affairs.
That said, there is a link between "bottoming out" record wise, having greater access to the available talent pool, correctly evaluating the talent in that pool, and then ascent into contender status. To the degree that bottoming out, whether by legitimate sustained ineptitude or contrived ineptitude (i.e. tanking) grants that greater access, it puts us potentially closer to becoming contenders.
Quote:It's fun to watch this play out every year. The same song and dance by the same cast of characters.
I read these threads and remember many of these same knuckleheads saying the same thing about Jevan Snead a few years ago.
They wanted the Jags to use their FIRST ROUND PICK on the guy and gushed like groupies all season long for the guy.
Imagine that. The year and the name of the QB changes, but the song and dance always remains the same.
Yes, and don't forget Jimmy Clausen too!
Regards...............the Chiefjag
Quote:
Yes, and don't forget Jimmy Clausen too!
Regards...............the Chiefjag
Some things never change. While the defenders try in vain to sugar coat it to look like it's neat to have an opinion, the fact of the matter is that losing is losing, and those who wish to lose can by definition be nothing but a loser.
I'm sure there will be some attempts at some clever retorts to this, but it is an undisputed fact. There is simply no argument against it.
Quote:Some things never change. While the defenders try in vain to sugar coat it to look like it's neat to have an opinion, the fact of the matter is that losing is losing, and those who wish to lose can by definition be nothing but a loser.
I'm sure there will be some attempts at some clever retorts to this, but it is an undisputed fact. There is simply no argument against it.
guess it ticks you off that we might finally get a real QB and start winning for a long time as beneficiary of this losing, huh?
You just refuse to comprehend that the people that are sacrificing wins for this season, have bigger goals/ longer term hopes in mind for this team. You're the ones that are being "short sighted" which is ironic because that term gets thrown around here a lot at the so called "bibbers".
Nobody is rooting for the Jaguars to lose just for the sake of them losing at face value....they want things to change for the better. Well guess what - the best chance of the Jags getting some consistent WINNING starting next season is with the worse their record is for this season. Thats not spin, its not a clever retort, its simply the truth.
Teddy Bridgewater ain't no Jimmy Clausen, Blaine Gabbert or any of those phonies some of you are giving as horrible examples of why the #1 pick isn't a given. You guys are cherry picking failures at QB to try and help your point, but it don't flush.
We know that losing sucks, it doesn't make us happy to have to go through a season like this, but I'd rather just nip it in the bud and just hit rock bottom for once if it means finally getting the real franchise QB, than going 5-11 every year and never quite being bad enough to really get a player that makes a huge difference.
The 1980's Dallas Cowboys had to finally hit rock bottom before then quickly upturning to a SB contender. Same can be said for the Steelers pre-1970's....or Niners, pre-80s.....or Patriots prior to their recent run of success the past decade-plus. So, maybe we're just going through our turn here, and if we finally hit rock bottom then better days will truly be ahead like the other examples. I have hope that that will happen.
Quote:guess it ticks you off that we might finally get a real QB and start winning for a long time as beneficiary of this losing, huh?
You just refuse to comprehend that the people that are sacrificing wins for this season, have bigger goals/ longer term hopes in mind for this team. You're the ones that are being "short sighted" which is ironic because that term gets thrown around here a lot at the so called "bibbers".
Nobody is rooting for the Jaguars to lose just for the sake of them losing at face value....they want things to change for the better. Well guess what - the best chance of the Jags getting some consistent WINNING starting next season is with the worse their record is for this season. Thats not spin, its not a clever retort, its simply the truth.
Teddy Bridgewater ain't no Jimmy Clausen, Blaine Gabbert or any of those phonies some of you are giving as horrible examples of why the #1 pick isn't a given. You guys are cherry picking failures at QB to try and help your point, but it don't flush.
We know that losing sucks, it doesn't make us happy to have to go through a season like this, but I'd rather just nip it in the bud and just hit rock bottom for once if it means finally getting the real franchise QB, than going 5-11 every year and never quite being bad enough to really get a player that makes a huge difference.
The 1980's Dallas Cowboys had to finally hit rock bottom before then quickly upturning to a SB contender. Same can be said for the Steelers pre-1970's....or Niners, pre-80s.....or Patriots prior to their recent run of success the past decade-plus. So, maybe we're just going through our turn here, and if we finally hit rock bottom then better days will truly be ahead like the other examples. I have hope that that will happen.
Wrong. If they started winning right now, and kept winning, you would be PO'd. You don't want them to win. You have made that very clear. You ONLY want them to win YOUR WAY. That is what differentiates you from a Jaguar fan.
Quote:guess it ticks you off that we might finally get a real QB and start winning for a long time as beneficiary of this losing, huh?
You just refuse to comprehend that the people that are sacrificing wins for this season, have bigger goals/ longer term hopes in mind for this team. You're the ones that are being "short sighted" which is ironic because that term gets thrown around here a lot at the so called "bibbers".
Nobody is rooting for the Jaguars to lose just for the sake of them losing at face value....they want things to change for the better. Well guess what - the best chance of the Jags getting some consistent WINNING starting next season is with the worse their record is for this season. Thats not spin, its not a clever retort, its simply the truth.
Teddy Bridgewater ain't no Jimmy Clausen, Blaine Gabbert or any of those phonies some of you are giving as horrible examples of why the #1 pick isn't a given. You guys are cherry picking failures at QB to try and help your point, but it don't flush.
We know that losing sucks, it doesn't make us happy to have to go through a season like this, but I'd rather just nip it in the bud and just hit rock bottom for once if it means finally getting the real franchise QB, than going 5-11 every year and never quite being bad enough to really get a player that makes a huge difference.
The 1980's Dallas Cowboys had to finally hit rock bottom before then quickly upturning to a SB contender. Same can be said for the Steelers pre-1970's....or Niners, pre-80s.....or Patriots prior to their recent run of success the past decade-plus. So, maybe we're just going through our turn here, and if we finally hit rock bottom then better days will truly be ahead like the other examples. I have hope that that will happen.
Bravo!
I agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically with what you expressed here.
Dakota and Chiefjag,
For all of your judgment and self righteousness you've expressed on the board over the years towards those who disagree on this issue, what evidence do you have that the Jaguars' approach has even come close to bearing anything other than mediocre fruit?
Where in your condescension is there talk about Jaguars Super Bowl trophies or playoff appearances within the past 5 years? Heck, I'm feeling magnanimous. I won't even hold you two to such "lofty standards." I'll even let you talk about the .500 seasons and semi important wins the team has raked up during that time.
Does the token sense of pride gained from a few meaningless wins in any way offset the lack of a QB?
Do the 2 meaningless wins over the Colts in 2011 and your self righteousness somehow make the subsequent 2-20 record any more palatable than the Colts who swallowed their pride for a year, got their QB, and have been contenders ever since?
Quote:Bravo!
I agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically with what you expressed here.
Dakota and Chiefjag,
For all of your judgment and self righteousness you've expressed on the board over the years towards those who disagree on this issue, what evidence do you have that the Jaguars' approach has even come close to bearing anything other than mediocre fruit?
Where in your condescension is there talk about Jaguars Super Bowl trophies or playoff appearances within the past 5 years? Heck, I'm feeling magnanimous. I won't even hold you two to such "lofty standards." I'll even let you talk about the .500 seasons and semi important wins the team has raked up during that time.
Does the token sense of pride gained from a few meaningless wins in any way offset the lack of a QB?
Does the 2 meaningless wins over the Colts in 2011 and your self righteousness somehow make the subsequent 2-20 record any more palatable than the Colts who swallowed their pride for a year, got their QB, and have been contenders ever since?
Show us some proof that the Colts "swallowed their pride" for a year? You live in a fantasy world.
That's the problem with you and those who think like you. You truly believe that someone making a 6 to 7 figure salary is actually going to tank it, and for what? So someone can come put them on the street.
Your premise is so laughable and that fact that you even try to defend it is even more laughable. I will not be upset if the Jags end up with the first pick next year, but you will NEVER hear me cross that border into loser land and want my team to fail.
Only a loser wishes for loss. Period.
Quote:Show us some proof that the Colts "swallowed their pride" for a year? You live in a fantasy world.
That's the problem with you and those who think like you. You truly believe that someone making a 6 to 7 figure salary is actually going to tank it, and for what? So someone can come put them on the street.
Your premise is so laughable and that fact that you even try to defend it is even more laughable. I will not be upset if the Jags end up with the first pick next year, but you will NEVER hear me cross that border into loser land and want my team to fail.
Only a loser wishes for loss. Period.
Whether they intentionally swallowed their pride or had it forced down their throats due to ineptitude, the fact is the Colts bottomed out, gained superior draft position, which enabled them unfettered access to Andrew Luck.
I'm still waiting on your discussion of the numerous rewards of your approach.
Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
BTW, I find it interesting how you close by saying you would not be upset if the Jags end up with the first pick next year.
How exactly does that separate you from us? Either you hate losing or you don't care if you lose...right?
If you don't care if you lose, how are you anything other than the loser you decry?