(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.
what the fart? please cite any example in the history of all sports of a team being accused of tanking for the tenth or twentieth pick of a draft.
(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?
Exactly. If a team truly wanted to tank, they would be bringing guys off the street to take the field. There is a difference between incompetent roster building/management and intentional attempts to lose.
(04-20-2021, 08:27 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2021, 08:18 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]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.
what the fart? please cite any example in the history of all sports of a team being accused of tanking for the tenth or twentieth pick of a draft.
(04-20-2021, 05:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]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?
Exactly. If a team truly wanted to tank, they would be bringing guys off the street to take the field. There is a difference between incompetent roster building/management and intentional attempts to lose.
lol Thank you.
The board does this song and dance every single off season. No coaches or players purposefully try to lose games. That's not what tanking is. Tanking is putting out inferior players (or coaches) in order to give your team a better chance at losing. Those players on the field or court are trying to win the game but they're just not good enough. The Sixers did it for years and I think the Jags/Jets tried that this year.
And for me personally, I either want to have the 1st overall pick or make the playoffs. Continually being 7-9 or 6-10 does nothing for your franchise. "Yea but what about finishing strong!" Nah. There's no correlation between ending the season with a few wins and then continuing that streak the next season.
(04-20-2021, 08:34 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 08:27 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]what the fart? please cite any example in the history of all sports of a team being accused of tanking for the tenth or twentieth pick of a draft.
Exactly. If a team truly wanted to tank, they would be bringing guys off the street to take the field. There is a difference between incompetent roster building/management and intentional attempts to lose.
lol Thank you.
The board does this song and dance every single off season. No coaches or players purposefully try to lose games. That's not what tanking is. Tanking is putting out inferior players (or coaches) in order to give your team a better chance at losing. Those players on the field or court are trying to win the game but they're just not good enough. The Sixers did it for years and I think the Jags/Jets tried that this year.
And for me personally, I either want to have the 1st overall pick or make the playoffs. Continually being 7-9 or 6-10 does nothing for your franchise. "Yea but what about finishing strong!" Nah. There's no correlation between ending the season with a few wins and then continuing that streak the next season.
Agreed generally with the statement in bold.
But even with that, there's a distinction to be made.
If you have a young team...perhaps in the first or second year of a rebuild, and it finally has a strong enough nucleus to be competitive, it's finally comfortable in the schemes and it starts to put things together, and there is still a chance of making the playoffs (see 1996 & 2004 Jaguars), that's one thing. Let the team continue to develop naturally and win those games. If they fall short of the playoffs, okay, but you gave it a good shot and you have some indicia your team is on the right track.
But if your team has been clearly trending downward over the course of multiple seasons, there has been a purging of talent, the coach and/or FO has been on the hot seat and the team has zero chance to reach the playoffs, any late season wins are of no use whatsoever, especially if it contributes to a division foe getting a franchise QB. I expect players and coaches to be competitive. But competitive drive without competitive talent leads to, at best, a bunch of competitive losses. At the end of the season, you'd still want to purge the team of competitive but inferior talent (i.e. Taven Bryan) in favor of superior competitive talent.
In this instance, we have a new coach implementing new schemes. The team has bottomed out at 1-15. We'll have the new QB in addition to a slew of other new players to fit the scheme. If the team starts slowly then starts to win mid to late season, I'm okay with it. While a win might harm draft position, at least we go forth with the idea we have the franchise QB, and then it's a matter of putting in other pieces around him.
(04-20-2021, 08:27 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2021, 08:18 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]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.
what the fart? please cite any example in the history of all sports of a team being accused of tanking for the tenth or twentieth pick of a draft.
(04-20-2021, 05:09 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]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?
Exactly. If a team truly wanted to tank, they would be bringing guys off the street to take the field. There is a difference between incompetent roster building/management and intentional attempts to lose.
I'm not talking about what the team wanted to do, im talking about a few of the fans on this board. You must be new here, #TankForTeddy was a thing. Some wanted to tank for Geno Smith as well
(04-20-2021, 08:34 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 08:27 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]what the fart? please cite any example in the history of all sports of a team being accused of tanking for the tenth or twentieth pick of a draft.
Exactly. If a team truly wanted to tank, they would be bringing guys off the street to take the field. There is a difference between incompetent roster building/management and intentional attempts to lose.
lol Thank you.
The board does this song and dance every single off season. No coaches or players purposefully try to lose games. That's not what tanking is. Tanking is putting out inferior players (or coaches) in order to give your team a better chance at losing. Those players on the field or court are trying to win the game but they're just not good enough. The Sixers did it for years and I think the Jags/Jets tried that this year.
And for me personally, I either want to have the 1st overall pick or make the playoffs. Continually being 7-9 or 6-10 does nothing for your franchise. "Yea but what about finishing strong!" Nah. There's no correlation between ending the season with a few wins and then continuing that streak the next season.
If we are 7-7 at the end of the year and out of the playoffs you are the guy that wants to play backups the last 2 games and pick 18 instead of 20 with that losing mentality. I'd rather win the last 2 and go 9-7, finish strong and change the culture. Let the players know losing is not the answer and also give the younger players the experience and learn how to win. Some of yal need to watch the last dance in Jordan's 2nd or 3rd year when he got hurt. Some people are just more competitive than others and hate losing.
(04-20-2021, 09:58 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 08:34 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]lol Thank you.
The board does this song and dance every single off season. No coaches or players purposefully try to lose games. That's not what tanking is. Tanking is putting out inferior players (or coaches) in order to give your team a better chance at losing. Those players on the field or court are trying to win the game but they're just not good enough. The Sixers did it for years and I think the Jags/Jets tried that this year.
And for me personally, I either want to have the 1st overall pick or make the playoffs. Continually being 7-9 or 6-10 does nothing for your franchise. "Yea but what about finishing strong!" Nah. There's no correlation between ending the season with a few wins and then continuing that streak the next season.
If we are 7-7 at the end of the year and out of the playoffs you are the guy that wants to play backups the last 2 games and pick 18 instead of 20 with that losing mentality. I'd rather win the last 2 and go 9-7, finish strong and change the culture. Let the players know losing is not the answer and also give the younger players the experience and learn how to win. Some of yal need to watch the last dance in Jordan's 2nd or 3rd year when he got hurt. Some people are just more competitive than others and hate losing.
Yea. Except this doesn't happen..... Culture isn't changed by winning a few meaningless games at the end of a season. Raiders won their last game of the season..... is their culture changed?
Also, why wouldn't you want to play backups for the last 2 games if you're out of playoff contention? It's almost like a pre-season game. See what some of these younger dudes have.
I also agree with Bullseye. If you are a young ascending team (Chargers), then maybe those late season wins mean something. However, they fired their coach and are starting over anyway so who cares?
This has nothing to do with a "loser mentality." Having better players gives your team a better chance to win and the best way to acquire these better players is with higher draft picks. Spurs tanked a season and ended up with Duncan.
(04-20-2021, 10:46 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 09:58 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]If we are 7-7 at the end of the year and out of the playoffs you are the guy that wants to play backups the last 2 games and pick 18 instead of 20 with that losing mentality. I'd rather win the last 2 and go 9-7, finish strong and change the culture. Let the players know losing is not the answer and also give the younger players the experience and learn how to win. Some of yal need to watch the last dance in Jordan's 2nd or 3rd year when he got hurt. Some people are just more competitive than others and hate losing.
Yea. Except this doesn't happen..... Culture isn't changed by winning a few meaningless games at the end of a season. Raiders won their last game of the season..... is their culture changed?
Also, why wouldn't you want to play backups for the last 2 games if you're out of playoff contention? It's almost like a pre-season game. See what some of these younger dudes have.
I also agree with Bullseye. If you are a young ascending team (Chargers), then maybe those late season wins mean something. However, they fired their coach and are starting over anyway so who cares?
This has nothing to do with a "loser mentality." Having better players gives your team a better chance to win and the best way to acquire these better players is with higher draft picks. Spurs tanked a season and ended up with Duncan.
Not just the few wins at the end of a season, every game. That's how to change the culture. All those top 5 and top 10 picks did us a lot of good didn't it? It's just a loser mentality, some people like to win at everything, some doesn't mind losing. If your GM needs pick 18 instead of pick 20 to pick the right guy you have the wrong GM. So the wins wins late in the season means something for the Chargers but not the other team? Lol, ok
(04-19-2021, 09:13 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2021, 08:18 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]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.
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.
The Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Jets and Panthers also had QB needs coming into this offseason. All of these teams passed on Mahomes and Watson. Draft position wouldn’t have done them any good. Honestly, given the track records of Washington and Denver, it may not have done either of those teams any good either. I’m not saying draft position doesn’t matter, but it is only one part of the equation. Obviously, when we were late in a one win season, and there was a generational QB prospect at stake, I was rooting for losses, but I agree it was a unique circumstance. To each his own though, I would never attack someone for wanting what they think is best for their team.
The only thing that changes things is winning to get in the playoffs. Out of contention, you play the backups to see what you got. You could still win because players and coaches want to win.
Honestly if you are talking about tanking, the coaches are on the hot seat and they need the win to demonstrate "progress".
Look at the Gus years, they are the only modern franchise to come out and do a full rebuild plan and how did that work out? We sucked hard but never picked first overall.
In conclusion... fans are going to fanatic.
(04-20-2021, 11:37 AM)JagsFanClubOfMD Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2021, 09:13 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]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.
The Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Jets and Panthers also had QB needs coming into this offseason. All of these teams passed on Mahomes and Watson. Draft position wouldn’t have done them any good. Honestly, given the track records of Washington and Denver, it may not have done either of those teams any good either. I’m not saying draft position doesn’t matter, but it is only one part of the equation. Obviously, when we were late in a one win season, and there was a generational QB prospect at stake, I was rooting for losses, but I agree it was a unique circumstance. To each his own though, I would never attack someone for wanting what they think is best for their team.
Exactly, it wasn't the draft position that helped the Chiefs because if it was about draft position the Browns would have Mahomes right now., they had the 1st pick. It was about making a move or picking the right guy
(04-20-2021, 11:26 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 10:46 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Yea. Except this doesn't happen..... Culture isn't changed by winning a few meaningless games at the end of a season. Raiders won their last game of the season..... is their culture changed?
Also, why wouldn't you want to play backups for the last 2 games if you're out of playoff contention? It's almost like a pre-season game. See what some of these younger dudes have.
I also agree with Bullseye. If you are a young ascending team (Chargers), then maybe those late season wins mean something. However, they fired their coach and are starting over anyway so who cares?
This has nothing to do with a "loser mentality." Having better players gives your team a better chance to win and the best way to acquire these better players is with higher draft picks. Spurs tanked a season and ended up with Duncan.
Not just the few wins at the end of a season, every game. That's how to change the culture. All those top 5 and top 10 picks did us a lot of good didn't it? It's just a loser mentality, some people like to win at everything, some doesn't mind losing. If your GM needs pick 18 instead of pick 20 to pick the right guy you have the wrong GM. So the wins wins late in the season means something for the Chargers but not the other team? Lol, ok
All those top 5-10 picks we had SHOULD have meant the team was better but the GM obviously has to make the right pick. You can't really believe there's no difference between pick 5 and pick 20.
I can see if you have a young ascending team, how wins late in the season could effect culture but it still wouldn't matter to me. Playoffs or bust. Being a middle of the road team gets you no where. I would rather be 3-13 with a top 3 pick than 7-9 with pick 20. Securing better players (given you have a competent GM) gives your team a better chance to win. It's why the draft order is the way it is.....
The wins obviously meant nothing to the Chargers last year because they fired their coach anyway. They won their last 4 games and fired their coach to change the culture.....
(04-20-2021, 11:43 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 11:26 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Not just the few wins at the end of a season, every game. That's how to change the culture. All those top 5 and top 10 picks did us a lot of good didn't it? It's just a loser mentality, some people like to win at everything, some doesn't mind losing. If your GM needs pick 18 instead of pick 20 to pick the right guy you have the wrong GM. So the wins wins late in the season means something for the Chargers but not the other team? Lol, ok
All those top 5-10 picks we had SHOULD have meant the team was better but the GM obviously has to make the right pick. You can't really believe there's no difference between pick 5 and pick 20.
I can see if you have a young ascending team, how wins late in the season could effect culture but it still wouldn't matter to me. Playoffs or bust. Being a middle of the road team gets you no where. I would rather be 3-13 with a top 3 pick than 7-9 with pick 20. Securing better players (given you have a competent GM) gives your team a better chance to win. It's why the draft order is the way it is.....
The wins obviously meant nothing to the Chargers last year because they fired their coach anyway. They won their last 4 games and fired their coach to change the culture.....
About the underlined part- I do not agree. Of course I would rather have a top 3 pick than pick 20. But I'd still rather be 7-9 going into the next season than 3-13. The reason is, your record is a measure of the overall quality of your team. A 7-9 team is much closer to the playoffs than a 3-13 team.
It does have some effect on "culture" of course, but that's not the big thing to me. To me, it's a measurement of the quality of your team.
Last year, when we got to 1-13, I saw the value of losing the last 2 games. Because at 1-15 vs 3-13, in both cases, the quality of your team sucks. It's practically the same thing, and then there was Trevor Lawrence. So I wasn't totally rigid in my stance on winning vs losing. But in general, I'd much rather have a 7-9 team than a 3-13 team.
(04-20-2021, 11:43 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 11:26 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Not just the few wins at the end of a season, every game. That's how to change the culture. All those top 5 and top 10 picks did us a lot of good didn't it? It's just a loser mentality, some people like to win at everything, some doesn't mind losing. If your GM needs pick 18 instead of pick 20 to pick the right guy you have the wrong GM. So the wins wins late in the season means something for the Chargers but not the other team? Lol, ok
All those top 5-10 picks we had SHOULD have meant the team was better but the GM obviously has to make the right pick. You can't really believe there's no difference between pick 5 and pick 20.
I can see if you have a young ascending team, how wins late in the season could effect culture but it still wouldn't matter to me. Playoffs or bust. Being a middle of the road team gets you no where. I would rather be 3-13 with a top 3 pick than 7-9 with pick 20. Securing better players (given you have a competent GM) gives your team a better chance to win. It's why the draft order is the way it is.....
The wins obviously meant nothing to the Chargers last year because they fired their coach anyway. They won their last 4 games and fired their coach to change the culture.....
As far as the last paragraph, it's about the young players learning what it takes to win and how to win, not the coach. Give me the 7-9 or 8-8 record this year than a 3-13. If we go 7-9 or 8-8 I know this team is improving and the arrow is pointing up than 3-13 and picking top 5 again. I don't think you go to games, because if you went to games I don't think you would say that. I go to watch them win, not to hope we have a higher pick next year.
(04-20-2021, 11:37 AM)JagsFanClubOfMD Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2021, 09:13 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]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.
The Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Jets and Panthers also had QB needs coming into this offseason. All of these teams passed on Mahomes and Watson. Draft position wouldn’t have done them any good. Honestly, given the track records of Washington and Denver, it may not have done either of those teams any good either. I’m not saying draft position doesn’t matter, but it is only one part of the equation. Obviously, when we were late in a one win season, and there was a generational QB prospect at stake, I was rooting for losses, but I agree it was a unique circumstance. To each his own though, I would never attack someone for wanting what they think is best for their team.
Draft position would have done them a ton of good had they scouted correctly.
I have always maintained that the only thing draft position guarantees is access to a larger talent pool. Nothing more, nothing less. We are in agreement on that point
But inferior draft position can preclude you from getting a superior talent even IF you evaluated that player properly. We all agree that Gene Smith was a putrid GM. But it's entirely possible even he couldn't have screwed up the chance to draft Andrew Luck if he had the chance. But he never had the chance because of poor draft position.
(04-20-2021, 09:45 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 08:34 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]lol Thank you.
The board does this song and dance every single off season. No coaches or players purposefully try to lose games. That's not what tanking is. Tanking is putting out inferior players (or coaches) in order to give your team a better chance at losing. Those players on the field or court are trying to win the game but they're just not good enough. The Sixers did it for years and I think the Jags/Jets tried that this year.
And for me personally, I either want to have the 1st overall pick or make the playoffs. Continually being 7-9 or 6-10 does nothing for your franchise. "Yea but what about finishing strong!" Nah. There's no correlation between ending the season with a few wins and then continuing that streak the next season.
Agreed generally with the statement in bold.
But even with that, there's a distinction to be made.
If you have a young team...perhaps in the first or second year of a rebuild, and it finally has a strong enough nucleus to be competitive, it's finally comfortable in the schemes and it starts to put things together, and there is still a chance of making the playoffs (see 1996 & 2004 Jaguars), that's one thing. Let the team continue to develop naturally and win those games. If they fall short of the playoffs, okay, but you gave it a good shot and you have some indicia your team is on the right track.
But if your team has been clearly trending downward over the course of multiple seasons, there has been a purging of talent, the coach and/or FO has been on the hot seat and the team has zero chance to reach the playoffs, any late season wins are of no use whatsoever, especially if it contributes to a division foe getting a franchise QB. I expect players and coaches to be competitive. But competitive drive without competitive talent leads to, at best, a bunch of competitive losses. At the end of the season, you'd still want to purge the team of competitive but inferior talent (i.e. Taven Bryan) in favor of superior competitive talent.
In this instance, we have a new coach implementing new schemes. The team has bottomed out at 1-15. We'll have the new QB in addition to a slew of other new players to fit the scheme. If the team starts slowly then starts to win mid to late season, I'm okay with it. While a win might harm draft position, at least we go forth with the idea we have the franchise QB, and then it's a matter of putting in other pieces around him.
What are you talking about?
Late season wins means everything to someone's future job prospects.No one wants to hire someone who quits.
And to think someone would lose on purpose just to help the people who are firing them is just ridiculous. They couldn't give a rats [BLEEP] about the teams fortunes once they are gone. If anything they would be vindictive and want to ruin things for the team that is firing them.
(04-20-2021, 12:08 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 11:37 AM)JagsFanClubOfMD Wrote: [ -> ]The Bears, 49ers, Jaguars, Jets and Panthers also had QB needs coming into this offseason. All of these teams passed on Mahomes and Watson. Draft position wouldn’t have done them any good. Honestly, given the track records of Washington and Denver, it may not have done either of those teams any good either. I’m not saying draft position doesn’t matter, but it is only one part of the equation. Obviously, when we were late in a one win season, and there was a generational QB prospect at stake, I was rooting for losses, but I agree it was a unique circumstance. To each his own though, I would never attack someone for wanting what they think is best for their team.
Draft position would have done them a ton of good had they scouted correctly.
I have always maintained that the only thing draft position guarantees is access to a larger talent pool. Nothing more, nothing less. We are in agreement on that point
But inferior draft position can preclude you from getting a superior talent even IF you evaluated that player properly. We all agree that Gene Smith was a putrid GM. But it's entirely possible even he couldn't have screwed up the chance to draft Andrew Luck if he had the chance. But he never had the chance because of poor draft position.
If Smith was a good GM he wouldn't of needed Luck
It's crazy to me some would rather see us go 3-13 this year than 7-9 or 8-8 if we miss the playoffs
(04-20-2021, 12:00 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 11:43 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]All those top 5-10 picks we had SHOULD have meant the team was better but the GM obviously has to make the right pick. You can't really believe there's no difference between pick 5 and pick 20.
I can see if you have a young ascending team, how wins late in the season could effect culture but it still wouldn't matter to me. Playoffs or bust. Being a middle of the road team gets you no where. I would rather be 3-13 with a top 3 pick than 7-9 with pick 20. Securing better players (given you have a competent GM) gives your team a better chance to win. It's why the draft order is the way it is.....
The wins obviously meant nothing to the Chargers last year because they fired their coach anyway. They won their last 4 games and fired their coach to change the culture.....
As far as the last paragraph, it's about the young players learning what it takes to win and how to win, not the coach. Give me the 7-9 or 8-8 record this year than a 3-13. If we go 7-9 or 8-8 I know this team is improving and the arrow is pointing up than 3-13 and picking top 5 again. I don't think you go to games, because if you went to games I don't think you would say that. I go to watch them win, not to hope we have a higher pick next year.
I don't go to games but if you think I haven't suffered through losing, then you are mistaken. Caps, Orioles, Terps and Jags..... Not exactly murderers row. I have gone to plenty of Orioles, Terps and Caps games throughout the years and most of the time, I'm going to the games to enjoy the atmosphere and party with friends. The outcome, most of the time, is largely irrelevant. It doesn't effect my day one bit. Playoff games are different though but outside of the Caps, not a lot of that happening.
Here's the list of 6-10, 7-9 or 8-8 teams from last season (excluding WFT and Chicago who made playoffs). Pats, Raiders, Chargers, Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Vikings, and Cards. Of those teams, I would say 2 or 3 have a better roster or better shot at making the playoffs than the Jags. And yet, they had 5-7 more wins than the Jags last season. I don't think the Bears, Pats, Raiders, or Giants are that much better than the Jags or even better at all for that matter.
Winning games is extremely important but the overall goal is to make the playoffs and ultimately a championship. If you don't make the playoffs, there is no difference in your record in my eyes. No playoffs means you have a lot of work to do and I would rather have a larger player pool to choose from when it comes to the draft.
(04-20-2021, 12:24 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 12:08 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Draft position would have done them a ton of good had they scouted correctly.
I have always maintained that the only thing draft position guarantees is access to a larger talent pool. Nothing more, nothing less. We are in agreement on that point
But inferior draft position can preclude you from getting a superior talent even IF you evaluated that player properly. We all agree that Gene Smith was a putrid GM. But it's entirely possible even he couldn't have screwed up the chance to draft Andrew Luck if he had the chance. But he never had the chance because of poor draft position.
If Smith was a good GM he wouldn't of needed Luck
It's crazy to me some would rather see us go 3-13 this year than 7-9 or 8-8 if we miss the playoffs
I would rather the team win every game but to me, there is no difference between 3-13 and 7-9 or 8-8. Both miss the playoffs and both have work to do. Games are largely decided by 1 score. Going 7-9 vs 3-13 largely means you got lucky in 3 games. It doesn't mean you're that much better than the rest of the bad teams. They're all bad.
(04-20-2021, 12:23 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 09:45 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed generally with the statement in bold.
But even with that, there's a distinction to be made.
If you have a young team...perhaps in the first or second year of a rebuild, and it finally has a strong enough nucleus to be competitive, it's finally comfortable in the schemes and it starts to put things together, and there is still a chance of making the playoffs (see 1996 & 2004 Jaguars), that's one thing. Let the team continue to develop naturally and win those games. If they fall short of the playoffs, okay, but you gave it a good shot and you have some indicia your team is on the right track.
But if your team has been clearly trending downward over the course of multiple seasons, there has been a purging of talent, the coach and/or FO has been on the hot seat and the team has zero chance to reach the playoffs, any late season wins are of no use whatsoever, especially if it contributes to a division foe getting a franchise QB. I expect players and coaches to be competitive. But competitive drive without competitive talent leads to, at best, a bunch of competitive losses. At the end of the season, you'd still want to purge the team of competitive but inferior talent (i.e. Taven Bryan) in favor of superior competitive talent.
In this instance, we have a new coach implementing new schemes. The team has bottomed out at 1-15. We'll have the new QB in addition to a slew of other new players to fit the scheme. If the team starts slowly then starts to win mid to late season, I'm okay with it. While a win might harm draft position, at least we go forth with the idea we have the franchise QB, and then it's a matter of putting in other pieces around him.
What are you talking about?
Late season wins means everything to someone's future job prospects.No one wants to hire someone who quits.
And to think someone would lose on purpose just to help the people who are firing them is just ridiculous. They couldn't give a rats [BLEEP] about the teams fortunes once they are gone. If anything they would be vindictive and want to ruin things for the team that is firing them.
From a football fan's perspective, who cares about the future job prospects of a player?
What's crunk juice doing these days?
Any word on what Don Davey is doing in his career
Keeping tabs on Stacey Mack or baby Boselli?
After every game and during every offseason everyone who has an opinion on this football team on this board talks about about what positions are good and what positions need upgrading.
What do you suppose that means?
During training camp we do roster projections and talk about guys who are on the bubble, etc. Do you seriously think those subjects have ZERO implications on the employment of these players?!? We fans have zero influence on these things so our speculations mean nothing, but teams undergo these same deliberations. Every year, they fire a ton of players. Every year, fans say so and so coach should be fired. People have been calling for Marrone to be fired since the AFC championship game in 2017 Unless it's a player we like, no fan even blinks when a player becomes unemployed.
Why would you pretend to care NOW?!?
Should we keep inferior players on the team to keep to avoid someone's job loss? For how long? retirement age? I'm not talking NFL retirement age, but 65?
Yes, I absolutely expect players and coaches to fight like hell to keep their jobs. It's only human nature they would. But I also absolutely expect a team to do what's in its best long term interests. If that means cutting a competitive but ineffective player, so be it. We all do.
(04-20-2021, 12:28 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 12:00 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the last paragraph, it's about the young players learning what it takes to win and how to win, not the coach. Give me the 7-9 or 8-8 record this year than a 3-13. If we go 7-9 or 8-8 I know this team is improving and the arrow is pointing up than 3-13 and picking top 5 again. I don't think you go to games, because if you went to games I don't think you would say that. I go to watch them win, not to hope we have a higher pick next year.
I don't go to games but if you think I haven't suffered through losing, then you are mistaken. Caps, Orioles, Terps and Jags..... Not exactly murderers row. I have gone to plenty of Orioles, Terps and Caps games throughout the years and most of the time, I'm going to the games to enjoy the atmosphere and party with friends. The outcome, most of the time, is largely irrelevant. It doesn't effect my day one bit. Playoff games are different though but outside of the Caps, not a lot of that happening.
Here's the list of 6-10, 7-9 or 8-8 teams from last season (excluding WFT and Chicago who made playoffs). Pats, Raiders, Chargers, Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Vikings, and Cards. Of those teams, I would say 2 or 3 have a better roster or better shot at making the playoffs than the Jags. And yet, they had 5-7 more wins than the Jags last season. I don't think the Bears, Pats, Raiders, or Giants are that much better than the Jags or even better at all for that matter.
Winning games is extremely important but the overall goal is to make the playoffs and ultimately a championship. If you don't make the playoffs, there is no difference in your record in my eyes. No playoffs means you have a lot of work to do and I would rather have a larger player pool to choose from when it comes to the draft.
(04-20-2021, 12:24 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]If Smith was a good GM he wouldn't of needed Luck
It's crazy to me some would rather see us go 3-13 this year than 7-9 or 8-8 if we miss the playoffs
I would rather the team win every game but to me, there is no difference between 3-13 and 7-9 or 8-8. Both miss the playoffs and both have work to do. Games are largely decided by 1 score. Going 7-9 vs 3-13 largely means you got lucky in 3 games. It doesn't mean you're that much better than the rest of the bad teams. They're all bad.
There is a difference to me. 7-9 means this team is improving and likely learning how to win, 3-13 the team hasn't improved much and we are likely picking top 5 again. Like you say, the outcome of a game is irrelevant to you, losses really doesn't bother you. Some people hate to lose, I'm one of them and I hope are players are like that too because I know our coach is.
(04-20-2021, 12:49 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (04-20-2021, 12:28 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]I don't go to games but if you think I haven't suffered through losing, then you are mistaken. Caps, Orioles, Terps and Jags..... Not exactly murderers row. I have gone to plenty of Orioles, Terps and Caps games throughout the years and most of the time, I'm going to the games to enjoy the atmosphere and party with friends. The outcome, most of the time, is largely irrelevant. It doesn't effect my day one bit. Playoff games are different though but outside of the Caps, not a lot of that happening.
Here's the list of 6-10, 7-9 or 8-8 teams from last season (excluding WFT and Chicago who made playoffs). Pats, Raiders, Chargers, Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Vikings, and Cards. Of those teams, I would say 2 or 3 have a better roster or better shot at making the playoffs than the Jags. And yet, they had 5-7 more wins than the Jags last season. I don't think the Bears, Pats, Raiders, or Giants are that much better than the Jags or even better at all for that matter.
Winning games is extremely important but the overall goal is to make the playoffs and ultimately a championship. If you don't make the playoffs, there is no difference in your record in my eyes. No playoffs means you have a lot of work to do and I would rather have a larger player pool to choose from when it comes to the draft.
I would rather the team win every game but to me, there is no difference between 3-13 and 7-9 or 8-8. Both miss the playoffs and both have work to do. Games are largely decided by 1 score. Going 7-9 vs 3-13 largely means you got lucky in 3 games. It doesn't mean you're that much better than the rest of the bad teams. They're all bad.
There is a difference to me. 7-9 means this team is improving and likely learning how to win, 3-13 the team hasn't improved much and we are likely picking top 5 again. Like you say, the outcome of a game is irrelevant to you, losses really doesn't bother you. Some people hate to lose, I'm one of them and I hope are players are like that too because I know our coach is.
When it comes to the regular season of the teams I root for, the losses don't affect me because I have no control over them. The teams I play on, I hate to lose because there are most likely things I could have done in order to win. I hate losing in anything where I am the one playing. My sports teams? Not so much anymore. I used to get upset when the Jags or Caps lost but there's really no reason to get upset.
Yikes. Guess I'm getting old..... 35!