Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(04-16-2021, 01:28 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Tanking is not a thing.

Did you not notice how many people got fired and lost millions of dollars?

Gregggg called a cover zero to seal a win and got fireded even!

(he was scapegoated for darn sure)

I am incredibly excited for April 29th. While Lawrence is the gold prize, I'm interested to see what we do at 25, or if we may even trade our 33nd pick to get 3 total first rounds.

(04-15-2021, 04:23 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ]Well, though it took us many years to finally hit rock bottom, we appear to have done it at exactly the right time. One of the most promising things to me going forward is the end of the tanking mentality. From here on, we win as many games as we can win, even if it’s a rough season.  We don’t need to root for losses, as we have our franchise quarterback. Nothing else is worth tanking for. Also, I fully anticipate we won’t be close to the bottom of the pack for quite a while.

Along with this, we can finally stop pretending that draft position means nothing, like so many tried to do in those tanking debates.

If we didn't have the top overall pick, there is no way in hell we get Trevor Lawrence.

(04-18-2021, 05:36 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2021, 04:23 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ]Well, though it took us many years to finally hit rock bottom, we appear to have done it at exactly the right time. One of the most promising things to me going forward is the end of the tanking mentality. From here on, we win as many games as we can win, even if it’s a rough season.  We don’t need to root for losses, as we have our franchise quarterback. Nothing else is worth tanking for. Also, I fully anticipate we won’t be close to the bottom of the pack for quite a while.

Along with this, we can finally stop pretending that draft position means nothing, like so many tried to do in those tanking debates.

If we didn't have the top overall pick, there is no way in hell we get Trevor Lawrence.

I think the point I always tried to make about "tanking," by which I assume we mean losing on purpose, is that players won't do it and coaches won't do it.  So there's no point in saying, "We should tank for Trevor" because it won't happen.  We didn't lose on purpose last year.  We lost because we genuinely sucked.  Yes, I agree that we were lucky to suck at the right time, but we didn't tank.  We just got really really lucky to suck at the right time.  And the Jets- God bless 'em- they played like professionals and tried to win every game.

The record was what we earned because of who we were last year. I enjoyed watching Minshew gut it out and try to win. Unfortunately, it was disheartening to see the game plans and awful execution expose our talent gaps and front office issues.

With this being the first time we pick first overall, it is nice there is a prize out of all this misery. I real hope this straightens out the franchise.

(04-16-2021, 01:21 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-16-2021, 09:41 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure if anyone watched the Bengals games last season but they were competitive in most of their games with Joe Burrow at QB but couldn't finish in the 4th quarter due to their young and inexperienced team.  Absent the wins, there was a significant improvement with that team.  I kind of foresee the same with the Jags this season but we may be in better shape since our division sucks.

Honestly that's sort of where this team was last year.  It played very well in spots but couldn't close.

.... and for those of us who wanted Trevor Lawrence, those close losses were very stressful.  The Vikings game was the one that had me on edge.  We stopped them at their own 20 yard line in OT and proceeded to get a penalty on our punt return setting us back to our own 18 yard line.  Vikings intercept the ball at the Jags 46, march down the field to the 5 and kick a 23 yard field goal.

(04-19-2021, 07:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-18-2021, 05:36 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Along with this, we can finally stop pretending that draft position means nothing, like so many tried to do in those tanking debates.

If we didn't have the top overall pick, there is no way in hell we get Trevor Lawrence.

I think the point I always tried to make about "tanking," by which I assume we mean losing on purpose, is that players won't do it and coaches won't do it.  So there's no point in saying, "We should tank for Trevor" because it won't happen.  We didn't lose on purpose last year.  We lost because we genuinely sucked.  Yes, I agree that we were lucky to suck at the right time, but we didn't tank.  We just got really really lucky to suck at the right time.  And the Jets- God bless 'em- they played like professionals and tried to win every game.

Well, except for maybe that Raider game

(Thanks, Gregg, although you still are a walking bag of feces)

(04-19-2021, 07:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-18-2021, 05:36 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Along with this, we can finally stop pretending that draft position means nothing, like so many tried to do in those tanking debates.

If we didn't have the top overall pick, there is no way in hell we get Trevor Lawrence.

I think the point I always tried to make about "tanking," by which I assume we mean losing on purpose, is that players won't do it and coaches won't do it.  So there's no point in saying, "We should tank for Trevor" because it won't happen.  We didn't lose on purpose last year.  We lost because we genuinely sucked.  Yes, I agree that we were lucky to suck at the right time, but we didn't tank.  We just got really really lucky to suck at the right time.  And the Jets- God bless 'em- they played like professionals and tried to win every game.

But did you mind if they lost/root for them to lose whether they were truly tanking or not?

---

(04-19-2021, 07:57 AM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]The record was what we earned because of who we were last year. I enjoyed watching Minshew gut it out and try to win. Unfortunately, it was disheartening to see the game plans and awful execution expose our talent gaps and front office issues.

With this being the first time we pick first overall, it is nice there is a prize out of all this misery. I real hope this straightens out the franchise.

It's but one of many steps needed to straighten out this franchise.

It's a huge step.  Perhaps the most important step.  But still one of many.

---

(04-19-2021, 09:24 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-16-2021, 01:21 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly that's sort of where this team was last year.  It played very well in spots but couldn't close.

.... and for those of us who wanted Trevor Lawrence, those close losses were very stressful.  The Vikings game was the one that had me on edge.  We stopped them at their own 20 yard line in OT and proceeded to get a penalty on our punt return setting us back to our own 18 yard line.  Vikings intercept the ball at the Jags 46, march down the field to the 5 and kick a 23 yard field goal.

Jeez, I had forgotten about that Vikings game.

It's like once we nailed the top overall pick, I forgot just about all details of last season.  I've been looking forward ever since.

---

(04-19-2021, 10:36 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 07:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point I always tried to make about "tanking," by which I assume we mean losing on purpose, is that players won't do it and coaches won't do it.  So there's no point in saying, "We should tank for Trevor" because it won't happen.  We didn't lose on purpose last year.  We lost because we genuinely sucked.  Yes, I agree that we were lucky to suck at the right time, but we didn't tank.  We just got really really lucky to suck at the right time.  And the Jets- God bless 'em- they played like professionals and tried to win every game.

Well, except for maybe that Raider game

(Thanks, Gregg, although you still are a walking bag of feces)

Yes he is.

Jeff Fisher, too.

I cringe for the college kids Fisher will coach at Tennessee State under Eddie George.  They will be cheap shot artists.

(04-19-2021, 03:33 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 07:19 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point I always tried to make about "tanking," by which I assume we mean losing on purpose, is that players won't do it and coaches won't do it.  So there's no point in saying, "We should tank for Trevor" because it won't happen.  We didn't lose on purpose last year.  We lost because we genuinely sucked.  Yes, I agree that we were lucky to suck at the right time, but we didn't tank.  We just got really really lucky to suck at the right time.  And the Jets- God bless 'em- they played like professionals and tried to win every game.

But did you mind if they lost/root for them to lose whether they were truly tanking or not?

---

No, I did not mind.  Yes, once we got deep into the season, I did root for them to lose.

(04-19-2021, 04:39 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 03:33 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]But did you mind if they lost/root for them to lose whether they were truly tanking or not?

---

No, I did not mind.  Yes, once we got deep into the season, I did root for them to lose.

Brace yourself.

Some of the anti tankers will come for you.

(04-19-2021, 05:01 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 04:39 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]No, I did not mind.  Yes, once we got deep into the season, I did root for them to lose.

Brace yourself.

Some of the anti tankers will come for you.

What exactly is an anti-tanker?   I don't think tanking exists.  Does that make me an anti tanker?

(04-19-2021, 05:19 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:01 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Brace yourself.

Some of the anti tankers will come for you.

What exactly is an anti-tanker?   I don't think tanking exists.  Does that make me an anti tanker?

No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:19 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What exactly is an anti-tanker?   I don't think tanking exists.  Does that make me an anti tanker?

No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

Yeah, and they would flood you with arguments that taking Trevor Lawrence didn't matter.  "It doesn't matter if we have pick #1 or #2, the first quarterback taken often isn't the best one.  Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round."

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:19 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What exactly is an anti-tanker?   I don't think tanking exists.  Does that make me an anti tanker?

No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

There were many on here who wanted to lose games for the first time since the Jags existence including me, the last few games to make sure we lock in Lawrence.  Lawrence, Manning, Elway, those our the only players worth tanking for if you get towards the end of the season and you have a chance to get them.  Some people just have that losing mentality and will want to tank every year for guys you can get late in the first or 2nd.

(04-19-2021, 06:45 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

Yeah, and they would flood you with arguments that taking Trevor Lawrence didn't matter.  "It doesn't matter if we have pick #1 or #2, the first quarterback taken often isn't the best one.  Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round."

Exactly.

---

(04-19-2021, 07:51 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

There were many on here who wanted to lose games for the first time since the Jags existence including me, the last few games to make sure we lock in Lawrence.  Lawrence, Manning, Elway, those our the only players worth tanking for if you get towards the end of the season and you have a chance to get them.  Some people just have that losing mentality and will want to tank every year for guys you can get late in the first or 2nd.

Then you would have had your loyalty questioned/assailed by Dakota, Predator, et al.

Draft position counts.  Having the ability to get a franchise QB counts.  Whether this is your first year rooting for us to lose or not, you admit it with your admission here.

(04-19-2021, 07:57 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 06:45 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, and they would flood you with arguments that taking Trevor Lawrence didn't matter.  "It doesn't matter if we have pick #1 or #2, the first quarterback taken often isn't the best one.  Tom Brady was taken in the 6th round."

Exactly.

---

(04-19-2021, 07:51 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]There were many on here who wanted to lose games for the first time since the Jags existence including me, the last few games to make sure we lock in Lawrence.  Lawrence, Manning, Elway, those our the only players worth tanking for if you get towards the end of the season and you have a chance to get them.  Some people just have that losing mentality and will want to tank every year for guys you can get late in the first or 2nd.

Then you would have had your loyalty questioned/assailed by Dakota, Predator, et al.

Draft position counts.  Having the ability to get a franchise QB counts.  Whether this is your first year rooting for us to lose or not, you admit it with your admission here.

Draft position is nice but you play to win the game.  Tanking for a guy you can get in the late first is just losing mentality imo.  A generational type talent when there is a couple games left and you can get him in a 1 win season is when you should want to lose a game to get that generational talent, which is rare.

(04-19-2021, 08:18 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 07:57 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly.

---

Then you would have had your loyalty questioned/assailed by Dakota, Predator, et al.

Draft position counts.  Having the ability to get a franchise QB counts.  Whether this is your first year rooting for us to lose or not, you admit it with your admission here.

Draft position is nice but you play to win the game.  Tanking for a guy you can get in the late first is just losing mentality imo.  A generational type talent when there is a couple games left and you can get him in a 1 win season is when you should want to lose a game to get that generational talent, which is rare.

You win games with superior players, including franchise QBs.  You improve your chances of getting superior players by getting better draft position.

How many games do the Colts win from 2012-2016 or so had they beaten us at the end of 2011, thereby missing out on Andrew Luck?

Go back to the 2017 draft, now look at the teams currently needing QBs.

You think Washington and Denver could have benefitted from losing another game or so if it netted them Patrick Mahomes or Deshaun Watson?  If you follow the analysts, they aren't generational talents the way TL is often described, yet they are already saying Mahomes will likely be a Hall of Famer (having already been to two Super Bowls).  Before his off field issues came to light, when Watson demanded a trade, there was talk he could easily command 3 first round picks in return for him.  But the thing is, neither KC nor Houston "let the draft fall to them" as Ketchman would advocate.  They traded up for them, paying a heavy price.  Why?  Because otherwise, with inferior draft position, they never could have gotten them.

This brings me to 2018.

The Colts were originally slated to pick 3rd overall and the Jets were originally slated to pick 6th.n  The Jets wanted to ensure access to Sam Darnold, who was projected to be taken before 6th overall.  Because the Colts had superior draft position to the Jets and no need for a QB (thanks to losing the last game in 2011 and getting superior draft position), they were able to obtain three (3) second round picks from the Jets to move down three spots.  Their draft position was still good enough to land a superior talent in Quentin Nelson, and they wound up with three extra second round picks with which to build their team.  Like the Chiefs, the Colts are now a playoff team.  Meanwhile in Buffalo, the superior draft position they surrendered in 2017 helped to give them the flexibility in 2018 to move up in the draft, acquiring superior draft position to draft a guy who would become a superior QB in Josh Allen-a guy who wound up unavailable to teams like Chicago (picking one spot below Buffalo) and Washington-both of whom are desperately in need of QBs now.

Now here we sit, revisiting this same debate, only now, you (and just about everyone else) are basically saying there was no loss or group of losses last year worth trading for Trevor Lawrence.  Why?  Would finishing 3-13/4-12 instead of 1-15 give the team momentum going into next year?  No.  Would the team somehow learn how to win?  No.  Would the coaching staff and FO still have been fired?  Yes.  Would the roster still need to be overhauled?  Yes. Would we be in a position to draft Trevor Lawrence?  No.  Could we have traded up to get him?  Most likely not.  If inferior draft position forced the 49ers to give up 3 first round picks and a 3rd round pick to move up to 3 to get a QB prospect deemed inferior to Trevor Lawrence by most observers, what would it cost for us to move up to # 1 to get this generational talent?  Every time the question of what it would take to trade out of this spot comes up on the board, the answer has overwhelmingly been either a)  No way in hell I trade down or; b) an offer so outlandish that no team would even think to make it.  Even before this was an issue, posters on this board are generally allergic to trading up.  No way you would have paid that to move up.  Having inferior draft position in this case leaves you with an inferior prospect.

Having inferior draft position means you have to rely on enough teams ahead of you getting their picks wrong to even give you the chance to get your pick right.

Why is this even in dispute?!?

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:19 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What exactly is an anti-tanker?   I don't think tanking exists.  Does that make me an anti tanker?

No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

Yes, but just to be clear, "tanking" means losing on purpose.  Although, the last 2 games last season, I wanted the team to lose, I have never been in favor of losing on purpose.  

In that way, I am on the side of the anti tankers.  Even though I wanted them to lose, I would never want players and coaches to lose on purpose.  Therefore, I am an anti tanker, and I have no argument with them.  

I wanted the team to lose, but I did not want them to tank.  Capisci?

(04-20-2021, 05:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

Yes, but just to be clear, "tanking" means losing on purpose.  Although, the last 2 games last season, I wanted the team to lose, I have never been in favor of losing on purpose.  

In that way, I am on the side of the anti tankers.  Even though I wanted them to lose, I would never want players and coaches to lose on purpose.  Therefore, I am an anti tanker, and I have no argument with them.  

I wanted the team to lose, but I did not want them to tank.  Capisci?

Agreed

(04-20-2021, 05:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-19-2021, 05:52 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]No it doesn't.

Anti tankers are moralists who would question your fanhood/loyalty if you root for the Jaguars to lose when they are out of playoff contention for the sake of better draft position.

Given the admission, the anti tanking moralizers would trash you.

Yes, but just to be clear, "tanking" means losing on purpose.  Although, the last 2 games last season, I wanted the team to lose, I have never been in favor of losing on purpose.  

In that way, I am on the side of the anti tankers.  Even though I wanted them to lose, I would never want players and coaches to lose on purpose.  Therefore, I am an anti tanker, and I have no argument with them.  

I wanted the team to lose, but I did not want them to tank.  Capisci?

Understood, but THAT distinction has never been made in these debates until now.

Before you made this distinction, even if you didn't want the team to lose on purpose, if you wanted the team to lose for the sake of superior draft position, you were considered less of a fan.  You were deemed a tanker.

With this distinction made, I can govern my rhetoric accordingly to accommodate this distinction.

That said, you still would not have escaped their derision. 

They would still have an argument with YOU.