Players rarely tank but he team may very well. If that is their end all be all we're in for more bad years to come. We have yet to compile a competitive roster and that falls on Gus ultimately.


As jaguar fans check out our local fan based podcast on www.rcrradio.com titled "The river city sports show"

---

If.... we lived in a utopia where 'tanking' was never done or even thought of.... where winning was of secondary importance and good sportsmanship was the goal.... where 'cheating' has never, ever been done.... then I would not be an advocate of tanking. 

 

However, that is not the world we live in. I realize that there are those who would argue and refuse to believe that teams have tanked to better their draft position before. If they chose to live in the land of unicorns and denial, that's up to them. I would prefer that this team wasn't in the position it's currently in; but we are, and so we have to consider the possibilities. 

 

Let me point out that while I've done my share of moaning about the poor play put on display week after week by our team, I'm also one who has cautioned about 'knee-jerk' reactionary responses to it. I'm one of those who has opted to wait until year three of the rebuild in order to get a more objective picture of if things are working or if there is even signs that's it's going to work out for us.

 

This being all said, consider...

 

*it is undeniable that the team is having a hard season. We need more help, especially with our offensive line and linebackers.

*the total number of draft picks a team can get is limited. Plus, the quality of the available picks varies from draft to draft. Our needs exceed the number of draft picks we're allowed.

*the lower we finish the season, the higher our draft pick, maximizing the potential to get the best picks available. 

*given the number of 'needs' we have, we could trade down for more picks to help get us out of our current 'funk' faster.

 

It is, of course, understood that no NFL team is going to admit it has ever tanked to get a particular draft pick even when it's obvious that they did. Take for instance the colts and Andrew Luck. From a strategic point of view, it would have been smart for the jags to have tanked that last game against the colts (a couple of years ago...) which would have possibly prevented Luck from going to Indianapolis. But that's water under the bridge now....

 

So there it is. Could it be advantageous for the Jags to 'tank' the rest of the games? Yes. Will they? We don't know. As it happens, given the current level of performance observed from the jags, 'tanking' on purpose may be purely an academic question; right now we are so bad that we don't have to go out of our way to lose.... which is sad indeed for the fans.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

If.... we lived in a utopia where 'tanking' was never done or even thought of.... where winning was of secondary importance and good sportsmanship was the goal.... where 'cheating' has never, ever been done.... then I would not be an advocate of tanking. 

 

However, that is not the world we live in. I realize that there are those who would argue and refuse to believe that teams have tanked to better their draft position before. If they chose to live in the land of unicorns and denial, that's up to them. I would prefer that this team wasn't in the position it's currently in; but we are, and so we have to consider the possibilities. 

 

Let me point out that while I've done my share of moaning about the poor play put on display week after week by our team, I'm also one who has cautioned about 'knee-jerk' reactionary responses to it. I'm one of those who has opted to wait until year three of the rebuild in order to get a more objective picture of if things are working or if there is even signs that's it's going to work out for us.

 

This being all said, consider...

 

*it is undeniable that the team is having a hard season. We need more help, especially with our offensive line and linebackers.

*the total number of draft picks a team can get is limited. Plus, the quality of the available picks varies from draft to draft. Our needs exceed the number of draft picks we're allowed.

*the lower we finish the season, the higher our draft pick, maximizing the potential to get the best picks available. 

*given the number of 'needs' we have, we could trade down for more picks to help get us out of our current 'funk' faster.

 

It is, of course, understood that no NFL team is going to admit it has ever tanked to get a particular draft pick even when it obvious that they did. Take for instance the colts and Andrew Luck. From a strategic point of view, it would have been smart for the jags to have tanked that last game against the colts which would have possibly prevented Luck from going to Indianapolis. But that's water under the bridge now....

 

So there it is. Could it be advantageous for the Jags to 'tank' the rest of the games? Yes. Will they? We don't know. As it happens, given the current level of performance observed from the jags, 'tanking' on purpose may be purely an academic question; right now we are so bad that we don't have to go out of our way to lose.... which is sad indeed for the fans.

 

---

If Andrew Luck was coming out? Yes... You tank.

---

Tanking is for losers no matter the position of need. No to tanking.

 

 

 

I find the fact  hilarious that Bradley is so in your head that you cannot and will not be able to leave him out of threads that discussion of him is not the topic. It will provide great humor for us until the eventual ban for derailing.

Then according to your logic, tanking is for the Jags, because they are and have been and unless they do something soon, will continue to be losers.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

my post aren't intended for the intellectually challenged, so don't feel bad.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

my post aren't intended for the intellectually challenged, so don't feel bad.

 

Glad to see you have no sense of humor...it's probably not the intellectual thing to do.

---

Glad to see you have no sense of humor...it's probably not the intellectual thing to do.

but I do have a sense of humor... I'm responding to you, aren't I?

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...