Oh isn't that cute.


You two have made fwends.

---

Oh isn't that cute.


You two have made fwends.

 

No need to be bitter. You can be fwends with us, too, if you just let go of that bitterness.

---

Three more that couldn't wait for the extra marshmallows.

 

WOW.

 

How can you not see the glaring, almost blindingly, obvious disparity between your example of the Marshmallow experiment -- which champions patience and inactivity -- and your call for the team to tank -- which calls for immediate action and denies the team their alloted time in which they can make a sound decision? This is so bad, and so far off of whatever point that you're trying to make that I wonder if it simply came about just because you stumbled across the article.

 

Those of us that want the team to win now are preaching patience in that the evaluation of college players is not complete. Yes, it's fun now to watch but fun now does not correlate to pain later. There's simply no guarantee of it. There are still offseason workouts, interviews, even bowl games still to be played and all of that can, and will, have an effect on the future.

 

So which one of us is denying instant gratification?

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

How can you not see the glaring, almost blindingly, obvious disparity between your example of the Marshmallow experiment -- which champions patience and inactivity -- and your call for the team to tank -- which calls for immediate action and denies the team their alloted time in which they can make a sound decision? This is so bad, and so far off of whatever point that you're trying to make that I wonder if it simply came about just because you stumbled across the article.

 

Those of us that want the team to win now are preaching patience in that the evaluation of college players is not complete. Yes, it's fun now to watch but fun now does not correlate to pain later. There's simply no guarantee of it. There are still offseason workouts, interviews, even bowl games still to be played and all of that can, and will, have an effect on the future.

 

So which one of us is denying instant gratification?

 

There is a direct reward for staving off short term NFL success.

 

Direct. A team's draft position is inversely situated to the win/loss success they experience.

 

I won't bemoan the team putting out its fullest effort to win, that's the prerogative of the current players, and unfortunately it would take active decisions by the team's decision makers to stop it if the team wanted to tank, which I wouldn't expect. Teams just don't usually do what the Colts did. I just think as a fan it should be obvious that a team is much better off seriously hitting rock bottom like the Colts did than winning just enough to ruin draft position for years the way the Jaguars have constantly done.

---

There is a direct reward for staving off short term NFL success.

 

Direct. A team's draft position is inversely situated to the win/loss success they experience.


 

I won't bemoan the team putting out its fullest effort to win, that's the prerogative of the current players, and unfortunately it would take active decisions by the team's decision makers to stop it if the team wanted to tank, which I wouldn't expect. Teams just don't usually do what the Colts did. I just think as a fan it should be obvious that a team is much better off seriously hitting rock bottom like the Colts did than winning just enough to ruin draft position for years the way the Jaguars have constantly done.

 

That's incomplete and you know it. Draft position alone does not guarantee success and to think that it does is bordering on ridiculous. Other teams can trade up past you, the player can be injured, the player may not work out, the evaluation may be incomplete, etc etc etc. The only thing that is affected is the draft position, but draft position alone does not guarantee success. In some cases, it can be argued that it is almost meaningless. Check the recent draft positions of the past five Title winners; Baltimore, New York Giants, Green Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh.

 

Baltimore hasn't had a top ten overall pick since 2003.

 

New York last had a top ten pick when it traded up for Eli, and then it had the Fourth overall spot. Their average first pick position over the last nine seasons? 27th.

 

Out of the last nine drafts, Green Bay has picked 16 or higher three times. And none of them were on a Quarterback.

 

New Orleans had the Second overall pick in 2006 and he isn't even on their roster any more.

 

Pittsburgh hasn't had a selection in the top ten since Plaxico Burress was still in college, 2000.

 

Any way that you slice it, draft position doesn't guarantee success. Sorry, but I'll choose to have patience.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

There is a direct reward for staving off short term NFL success.

 

Direct. A team's draft position is inversely situated to the win/loss success they experience.

 

I won't bemoan the team putting out its fullest effort to win, that's the prerogative of the current players, and unfortunately it would take active decisions by the team's decision makers to stop it if the team wanted to tank, which I wouldn't expect. Teams just don't usually do what the Colts did. I just think as a fan it should be obvious that a team is much better off seriously hitting rock bottom like the Colts did than winning just enough to ruin draft position for years the way the Jaguars have constantly done.

No. There is never any direct reward for losing. Regardless of the situation, and the sport. A lot of tankers like to keep bringing up Andrew Luck and the Colts, but let's all remember that the Colts already had playmakers in Reggie Wayne, Donald Brown, Austin Collie, Robert Mathis, Dwight Freeney, and Antoine Bethea. So it was going to be a relatively short rebuild. The verdict is still out there on Luck. He had a great 2012 season, but lately he hasn't been playing as well. And I would like to make the point that I made in another thread, about how it was Peyton Manning who won the AFC South for the Colts yesterday, not Andrew Luck.

 

 

Not every 1st round draft pick is going to be a hit. You can find talented players anywhere in the draft. Russell Wilson and Tom Brady are both excellent examples of this.

 

 

So Oklahomie, we are the ones that are actually following the marshmellow experiment by waiting to get talented players in higher draft positions, and later rounds. Not you.

---

 

Any way that you slice it, draft position doesn't guarantee success. Sorry, but I'll choose to have patience.

 

How many years have the Rams picked at the top of the draft and have what to show for it?

---

;

;

That's incomplete and you know it. Draft position alone does not guarantee success and to think that it does is bordering on ridiculous. Other teams can trade up past you, the player can be injured, the player may not work out, the evaluation may be incomplete, etc etc etc. The only thing that is affected is the draft position, but draft position alone does not guarantee success. In some cases, it can be argued that it is almost meaningless. Check the recent draft positions of the past five Title winners; Baltimore, New York Giants, Green Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh.

 

Baltimore hasn't had a top ten overall pick since 2003.

 

New York last had a top ten pick when it traded up for Eli, and then it had the Fourth overall spot. Their average first pick position over the last nine seasons? 27th.

 

Out of the last nine drafts, Green Bay has picked 16 or higher three times. And none of them were on a Quarterback.

 

New Orleans had the Second overall pick in 2006 and he isn't even on their roster any more.

 

Pittsburgh hasn't had a selection in the top ten since Plaxico Burress was still in college, 2000.

 

Any way that you slice it, draft position doesn't guarantee success. Sorry, but I'll choose to have patience.

 

You're not espousing patience, you're espousing indifference.

 

Still your point is ridiculous, the value isn't the player you get, the value is the draft position you get, and if you think draft position doesn't have value then you're incorrect.

 

However, the part of your post that really puts your point aside is that you list off multiple teams that either have elite QBs or very high level rosters as examples of why high draft picks don't help, which is not the case.

 

Baltimore has had a defense with multiple all-pro level players.

 

The Giants got an elite QB in 2004.

 

New Orleans got an elite QB.

 

Pittsburgh got an elite QB in 2004.

 

What you're actually saying is that if you get an elite QB or hit on some hall of fame level players then you won't be picking high for a while and you'll still do well. Which isn't actually saying anything profound at all.

 

On the other hand, what are the Colts doing right now if they had the 10th pick in the 2012 draft instead of the #1 pick?

---

How many years have the Rams picked at the top of the draft and have what to show for it?

 

Actually I think the Rams have picked up some pretty good D-linemen along the way with their high picks....

 

THe reason they've never totally turned the corner is........wait for it........the lack of a franchise QB. Bradford isn't one. He's at best a game manager type. 

---

No. There is never any direct reward for losing. Regardless of the situation, and the sport. A lot of tankers like to keep bringing up Andrew Luck and the Colts, but let's all remember that the Colts already had playmakers in Reggie Wayne, Donald Brown, Austin Collie, Robert Mathis, Dwight Freeney, and Antoine Bethea. So it was going to be a relatively short rebuild. The verdict is still out there on Luck. He had a great 2012 season, but lately he hasn't been playing as well. And I would like to make the point that I made in another thread, about how it was Peyton Manning who won the AFC South for the Colts yesterday, not Andrew Luck.

 

 

Not every 1st round draft pick is going to be a hit. You can find talented players anywhere in the draft. Russell Wilson and Tom Brady are both excellent examples of this.

 

 

So Oklahomie, we are the ones that are actually following the marshmellow experiment by waiting to get talented players in higher draft positions, and later rounds. Not you.

 

Wow, this is quite creative. Quite the job of mental backflips.

 

Obviously not every first round pick is a hit, the value is in the draft slot, like I said.

 

As for your point about the marshmallow experiment, you clearly don't even understand what's under discussion here.

---

You're not espousing patience, you're espousing indifference. 1


 

Still your point is ridiculous, the value isn't the player you get, the value is the draft position you get, and if you think draft position doesn't have value then you're incorrect. 2


 

However, the part of your post that really puts your point aside is that you list off multiple teams that either have elite QBs or very high level rosters as examples of why high draft picks don't help, which is not the case.

 

Baltimore has had a defense with multiple all-pro level players.

 

The Giants got an elite QB in 2004.

 

New Orleans got an elite QB.

 

Pittsburgh got an elite QB in 2004.

 

What you're actually saying is that if you get an elite QB or hit on some hall of fame level players then you won't be picking high for a while and you'll still do well. Which isn't actually saying anything profound at all. 3


 

On the other hand, what are the Colts doing right now if they had the 10th pick in the 2012 draft instead of the #1 pick? 4

 

Okay, I'll tackle your points in turn...

 

1. In no way am I espousing indifference. I have a vested interest in the success of the team. Simply because I view it in a different light than you, and that my perspective does not call for a change in the current mindset or actions does not mean I am indifferent, nor do I want other people to have an indifferent mindset. That is not true in any way shape or form.

 

2. I never once said value, I was focused on success. The value of a draft pick is only as good as the people who want it, and my listing of the past five Champions -- teams who have enjoyed success by my definition -- was showing that you can have success while having "middle of the pack" draft value. Highest possible draft value is your platform, not mine.

 

3. Again, you are being incomplete. What I am espousing is that a team does not need to have extremely high value in terms of draft picks in order to be successful. The only top five draft selection in that list is Manning, and I'm fairly certain that the argument can be made that he may be the lowest player on that particular five Quarterback totem pole.

 

4. I dunno, maybe draft Russell Wilson in the Third Round ahead of Seattle and post a better record these past two seasons than what they have? Think that might be a possibility?

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Okay, I'll tackle your points in turn...

 

1. In no way am I espousing indifference. I have a vested interest in the success of the team. Simply because I view it in a different light than you, and that my perspective does not call for a change in the current mindset or actions does not mean I am indifferent, nor do I want other people to have an indifferent mindset. That is not true in any way shape or form.

 

2. I never once said value, I was focused on success. The value of a draft pick is only as good as the people who want it, and my listing of the past five Champions -- teams who have enjoyed success by my definition -- was showing that you can have success while having "middle of the pack" draft value. Highest possible draft value is your platform, not mine.

 

3. Again, you are being incomplete. What I am espousing is that a team does not need to have extremely high value in terms of draft picks in order to be successful. The only top five draft selection in that list is Manning, and I'm fairly certain that the argument can be made that he may be the lowest player on that particular five Quarterback totem pole.

 

4. I dunno, maybe draft Russell Wilson in the Third Round ahead of Seattle and post a better record these past two seasons than what they have? Think that might be a possibility?

 

1. I don't call for a change in mindset of the team, I call for a change in mindset of the fans. This place being a cave of raving lunatics when the team was 0-8 was the wrong reaction. The reaction should have been "I don't like losing, but let's get this out of the way now so we can be rewarded in the draft."

 

2. Of course you can have success while having middle of the draft picks. That doesn't mean those picks are more valuable. Do you think teams will give the same value in trade for a #16 pick as they will for a #3 pick? Of course not, the actual value of the picks are vastly different. If Caldwell really is a superior GM then he'll achieve more success more than the average GM with his draft position, but it's not something that can be counted on.

 

3. Of course not, but the value of the picks and the availability of choice increases with higher draft picks.

 

4. Or maybe we could draft Brady, or Romo, or Kaepernick, or Roethlisberger. Of course we couldn't draft those guys if we didn't have the pick in position to do it and other teams wanted them more. What you're suggesting is that our GM must be smarter than other GMs, which I'd certainly like, but that's a separate issue from the value of the draft slots we occupy.

---

The browns should be thankful. The Patriots did them a favor. Every team not realistically playing for a Superbowl is actually losing by winning.

 

The Jaguars completely lost the first half of the season by going 0-8 and now they're losing the second half of it, too, but winning a lot of meaningless games against other bottom feeders to make sure they'll be starting either Gabbert or another team's cast-off QB next season.

 

For anyone that still doesn't understand what's at stake and what it means to be seething for meaningless wins on the tail end of a lost season see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_m...experiment

 

Being patient and willing to take the lumps now is what would lead to true success in the future. Ask the Colts.

 

Just when you think the stupidity will end ...

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

What is your point?

 

 

No way. Beer bottles were thrown at one of our games because of an official review error that negated two first downs - a totally different situation. The Browns had time - they just did not have Josh Scobee.

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

1. I don't call for a change in mindset of the team, I call for a change in mindset of the fans. This place being a cave of raving lunatics when the team was 0-8 was the wrong reaction. The reaction should have been "I don't like losing, but let's get this out of the way now so we can be rewarded in the draft."

 

2. Of course you can have success while having middle of the draft picks. That doesn't mean those picks are more valuable. Do you think teams will give the same value in trade for a #16 pick as they will for a #3 pick? Of course not, the actual value of the picks are vastly different. If Caldwell really is a superior GM then he'll achieve more success more than the average GM with his draft position, but it's not something that can be counted on.

 

3. Of course not, but the value of the picks and the availability of choice increases with higher draft picks.

 

4. Or maybe we could draft Brady, or Romo, or Kaepernick, or Roethlisberger. Of course we couldn't draft those guys if we didn't have the pick in position to do it and other teams wanted them more. What you're suggesting is that our GM must be smarter than other GMs, which I'd certainly like, but that's a separate issue from the value of the draft slots we occupy.

 

Your response to #1 confuses me. What will changing the mindset of the fans accomplish? If you don't want the team to change their approach in winning as many games as possible, but you want the fanbase to embrace the idea that it is better to lose in order to win. Those two things do not work together. It seems to me that all that is going to happen is the fanbase will become frustrated with the approach of the team.

 

You are hung up on value. I'm saying that the value of the picks is insignificant when compared to what the team does with them. If Caldwell is a below average GM, then regardless of where he picks the team will suffer. Matt Millen was a below average GM and he had something along the lines of five consecutive top five selections from 2002 to 2006. Despite that high value, Detroit did not experience a whole lot of success.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Your response to #1 confuses me. What will changing the mindset of the fans accomplish? If you don't want the team to change their approach in winning as many games as possible, but you want the fanbase to embrace the idea that it is better to lose in order to win. Those two things do not work together. It seems to me that all that is going to happen is the fanbase will become frustrated with the approach of the team.

 

You are hung up on value. I'm saying that the value of the picks is insignificant when compared to what the team does with them. If Caldwell is a below average GM, then regardless of where he picks the team will suffer. Matt Millen was a below average GM and he had something along the lines of five consecutive top five selections from 2002 to 2006. Despite that high value, Detroit did not experience a whole lot of success.

 

It accomplishes as much as anything that gets done on this board does.

 

I am hung up on value. I won't stop being a fan if the Jaguars go 7-9 and end up with the 15th pick when we could have had the first pick, I'll just be disappointed if guys we miss out on turn out to be real difference makers and the guy we end up drafting doesn't.

 

Also I don't buy into culture, not that you've been referencing it, it's just a digression from our discussion.

 

The Jaguars had a losing culture until they suddenly didn't, now they suddenly have a competitive winning culture, until they start losing, then they suddenly will have a losing culture again.

 

The culture can be established at any time, and it won't necessarily carry over between any two seasons.

 

What happened to the Falcons' winning culture?

---

It accomplishes as much as anything that gets done on this board does. 1


 

I am hung up on value. I won't stop being a fan if the Jaguars go 7-9 and end up with the 15th pick when we could have had the first pick, I'll just be disappointed if guys we miss out on turn out to be real difference makers and the guy we end up drafting doesn't. 2


 

Also I don't buy into culture, not that you've been referencing it, it's just a digression from our discussion.

 

The Jaguars had a losing culture until they suddenly didn't, now they suddenly have a competitive winning culture, until they start losing, then they suddenly will have a losing culture again.

 

The culture can be established at any time, and it won't necessarily carry over between any two seasons.

 

What happened to the Falcons' winning culture? 3

 

1. You've really lost me here. Are you saying that since it will have no impact that it's okay to put a plan in motion that will essentially cause the fanbase to disengage from the team?

 

2. I see your point, but having your pick of the litter in the draft doesn't correlate to success; and that's what I'm hung up on. If Jacksonville drafted 32 in each round for five years, got horrid draft "grades" from every pundit in the known universe, and every media outlet called for their outright ouster and they still ended up as perrenial Playoff contenders, I'd be happy. I'm simply not willing to put my faith into a situation with as many unknown items and moving parts as the Draft. Work now, work with what you've got, learn who your players are and what they can do. Don't go around pouting just because someone else gets a great player; get your own great player.

 

3. I disagree with you about culture, but that may be because I don't believe in the concept of a "winning" culture.  I believe that teams have whatever culture the staff develops and maintains. Teams do have a culture, and it is palpable to those who are inside of it. If a team, i.e. the players, know that the staff has clear, defined expectations of preparation and performance, it is visible and they will respond to it. Cultures exist, but they go beyond a W-L record. Having witnessed both sides of it, it will be very hard for you to convince me otherwise.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

1. You've really lost me here. Are you saying that since it will have no impact that it's okay to put a plan in motion that will essentially cause the fanbase to disengage from the team?

 

2. I see your point, but having your pick of the litter in the draft doesn't correlate to success; and that's what I'm hung up on. If Jacksonville drafted 32 in each round for five years, got horrid draft "grades" from every pundit in the known universe, and every media outlet called for their outright ouster and they still ended up as perrenial Playoff contenders, I'd be happy. I'm simply not willing to put my faith into a situation with as many unknown items and moving parts as the Draft. Work now, work with what you've got, learn who your players are and what they can do. Don't go around pouting just because someone else gets a great player; get your own great player.

 

3. I disagree with you about culture, but that may be because I don't believe in the concept of a "winning" culture.  I believe that teams have whatever culture the staff develops and maintains. Teams do have a culture, and it is palpable to those who are inside of it. If a team, i.e. the players, know that the staff has clear, defined expectations of preparation and performance, it is visible and they will respond to it. Cultures exist, but they go beyond a W-L record. Having witnessed both sides of it, it will be very hard for you to convince me otherwise.

 

1. The fanbase is already disengaged from the team, at least the part of the fanbase that will disengage. Those of us that populate this board aren't going to disengage, and those that will disengage already are, the team has been bad for multiple years in a row. Once the team starts winning those fans that are only interested in good teams will be back.

 

2. Having later draft picks correlates to success because players don't just play one year. Teams rise and fall over years. The Patriots have been good to great since the mid 90's when they went to the Superbowl under Bledsoe and Parcells. One day the Patriots will fail to reload their roster sufficiently and they'll become something much like the Jaguars of the last 13 years - just happy with a wildcard slot in the playoffs. Getting better draft picks doesn't guarantee anything except that you've got the chance to pick first, which is a good thing.

 

3. What happened to the Falcons winning culture?

---

1. The fanbase is already disengaged from the team, at least the part of the fanbase that will disengage. Those of us that populate this board aren't going to disengage, and those that will disengage already are, the team has been bad for multiple years in a row. Once the team starts winning those fans that are only interested in good teams will be back.

 

2. Having later draft picks correlates to success because players don't just play one year. Teams rise and fall over years. The Patriots have been good to great since the mid 90's when they went to the Superbowl under Bledsoe and Parcells. One day the Patriots will fail to reload their roster sufficiently and they'll become something much like the Jaguars of the last 13 years - just happy with a wildcard slot in the playoffs. Getting better draft picks doesn't guarantee anything except that you've got the chance to pick first, which is a good thing.

 

3. What happened to the Falcons winning culture?

 

1. So you just want to sow discord amongst the fanbase?

 

2. Sure, why not.

 

3. I have no idea, but that's probably because I don't ken to a "winning" culture. Ask someone who believes in it.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

1. So you just want to sow discord amongst the fanbase?

 

2. Sure, why not.

 

3. I have no idea, but that's probably because I don't ken to a "winning" culture. Ask someone who believes in it.

 

1. No.

 

2. Okay.

 

3. There is no such thing as winning culture. There is winning and losing. Saints last years, Falcons this year, Houston this year.

---