Quote: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.

 

I know that I'm coming back into this arguement rather late, my apologies.  Having 1 infant and 1 toddler, and a wife that doesn't understand why I don't jump ship off the Jaguars, makes it difficult to post as often as I like.

 

With that said, let me begin our debate again...

 

I've skimmed through the 6 or so pages since your response to me...  From what I've gleamed, this discussion has followed the typical Jungle MB zietgiest of being reduced to Bibbers V. Homers.  I don't care for this drama.  More often than not, it is unproductive--though I must admit rather entertaining.

 

I've read you're stuff for the past year or so, Bullseye, and you are absolutely not a "mouth-breather" or a "self-soiler" or whatever.  It's pretty wack (do kids still say that?) to think otherwise.  You're proposition regarding getting the #1 pick is fine.  If we can project that having the #1 pick will create an organization like the clots, then sure, let's tank.

 

However, the QB's coming out this draft won't solidify a Dynasty.  All we can hope for is a team that can contend.  Anything more-- based on tanking-- would be wishfull thinking.  Even though it's a QB driven league, you still need many aspects to ensure contender status, much less a dynasty.  These are all things you know, and I'm just restating it to provide a basis for my arguement. 

 

Now with the obvious out there, I'll go to history-- The history that backs my position, of course...  :-)

 

The Detroit Lions, under GM Matt Millen, bottomed out multiple times in the late 90's/early 2000's...  They had multiple high first round picks and finally got thier franchise QB, franchise WR, and the franchise DT...  Stafford, Megatron, BoynameSuh...  These picks were all touted at the time as key franchise picks that a bottom tier team could utilize to leap into not just parity, but contender status.

 

Without taking the time to search how often this nucleus has gone to the playoffs since Millen left, it's clear that the Lions are a tough team.  However, I do not recall the Lions getting to any Superbowls since bottoming out.  I don't remember the Lions being in the playoffs on a consistent basis.  What I see is a team that  has ups and downs, has good years and disappointing years...  It makes me wonder if maybe they are still trying to build a franchise that believes they are winners.  It also makes me wonder if perhaps all those high draft picks they got from bottoming out were not the best picks to have.  It then also makes me wonder if bottoming out is the best method to build a team.

 

If we look at draft picks in terms of game theory, then yes, statistically it makes sense to bottom out and get the "best" player.  For instance, when a pawn crosses into the opposing king row, the player can choose any piece to "promote" that pawn.  It's a given that the player will choose Queen. But the problem is that football is not perfect.  If you choose Queen as promotion, it does not solidify you will have a Franchise player worth the value of said promotion.

 

On top of that, you're dealing with humans.  We as humans are not subject to just enviornment.  We are also not subject to just genetics.  There's a combination that creates dynamic randomness. 

 

For me, I'd preferr we get a good GM that can build a team through multiple years.  I think we all agree with that.  Additionally, I do not believe that bottoming out implies a rise to contention.  I provided the Lions as my example.  You could put the Bills, Browns, Raiders, Jaguars (sigh), Vikings, etc into the mix.

 

To me, I think it's important to understand that we suck.  But to  suck consistently doesn't necessarily translate to future wins.  It just doesn't.  Not in the NFL.  You need a good evaluator of talent, you need a good HC that can build players, and you need a decent QB (franchise doesn't mean elite, just good enough) to become a perpetual contender.  I don't think Tanking is a philosophy that any team should consider. 

 

If you exclude the lottery ticket that occured for the clots when they hit on Luck, most teams don't turn it around consistently.  Even with that said, I'm still not sold that Luck with be better and provide the clots as many SB rings as Manning has...  That team's D is getting old on the D-line, and thier WR's are not very good.  Plus, Luck is not as accurate as Manning past 20 yards...  But that's a different discussion...

 

In conclusion, my theory is that we must continue to work towards wins.  Winning will not provide us a SB this year.  But winning will provide a leaping off point into the future.  Yes, we can tank this year and then get the #1 pick.  But my points above show historical evidence that #1 picks do not mean we will be contenders either.  (oh I just forgot about the tacks...  They got V.Young, had Chris Johnson in his prime, really good D that they picked up from Free Agency and high draft picks, but still were inconsistent).  Again, it's just the fact that we shouldn't expect that tanking like TMD would say to get Bridgewater should be our goal for this year.

 

I mean, sheesh, people are now drooling over Florida State's QB, and he won't be draftable till next year.  The point is that EVERY YEAR there will be a QB to "Tank" for.  Rather than tanking, why not create a winnin franchise philosophy.  Draft Well.  Develop your Talent.  Seek Value in Free Agency.  YEAR IN / YEAR OUT.  Become a Franchise of consitency. 

 

I look forward to your response.  I apologize for some of my ramblings.

---