You said you hope they win the coin toss so we get a higher fourth round pick. Why does that matter to a team that is stuck in a five-way tie before the Cowboys pick?

he didnt say it i did... keep up

 

we have to 4ths... we get the ravens in addition to ours. we will pick 5th in that round and get the ravens pick, if the cowboys win the coin toss we'll get the 14th pick in the 4th if the boys lose, we'll be picking 19th...

 

it's 5 o clock somewhere I see...

---

Let me pose a direct question to you, TMD.

 

What did you want this team to do?  Sabotage the season, apparently.  But I want to know HOW.

 

Who would you have started instead of who? 

 

What kind of message does it send to start a Reynolds instead of Poz for example?

 

What kind of message does it send to start Denard Robinson ahead of MJD or Todman?

 

I would love to know HOW you would have tanked to assure the top pick.  Give me specific examples, keeping in mind that Bradley is coaching for his job, his livelihood, and to improve his team.

 

I'm sick of you just complaining. Tell us exactly how you would have achieved all the losses.

 

If you're winning by a TD, would you have pulled the starters?  Would you have played schemes you know your players can't play well?  Would you put Poz at CB and Gratz at MLB?  Give me specific examples how you would have tanked.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

le sigh...

 

Cowboys and Ravens finish with the same record and same sos

so a coin flip will decide when they pick.

if the boys win the coin flip, we get the ravens 4th rounder at pick 14 in that round, if the boys lose we get pick 19

and then again in round 5 we'll get the Ravens pick again.

 

Basically we don't care about the Cowboys... just want them to "win" the coin flip so we get the earlier pick in round 4.

 

http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2013/12/30/...icks-trade

 

I don't get it. If the coin toss determines who owns #16 and #17 in Round 4, the draft order should go like this:

 

16. Ravens

17. Cowboys

 

Where do they get 14 and 19 from?

---

No problem.

 

http://bit.ly/1cfQ5IR

 

It's earth shattering how few were picked with the top two picks. :woot:

 

The problem is not every draft is the same. You can't just take a cumulative look at the history and assume that because "scenario B" worked in the past, does not mean that it is fine that if you don't get "scenario A".

 

Last year, I wouldn't even have cared if we picked 1, 2, 3, or 10.  The talent was bunched up, and that is proving to be true on the field (so far). 2012 however, is another year like this year. That year had two prizes: Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin. One team decided to pony up RG3 and managed a king's ransom in return. The other just took their prize. In both cases, I cannot imagine that their fans would trade Luck and their RG3-haul for two-three more wins from the previous year.

 

By the way, since you're using the ROTY as your argument (one that is flawed to begin with, since how a player performs in their rookie year is not always an indicator of future success), why don't you focus on the recent ones? 

 

Last five years it has been Ryan, Harvin, Bradford, Newton, RG3. 

 

Matt Ryan should have been #1, given that the Fins needed a QB. They screwed up in not taking him, and now the guy they took is no longer with them. This set them back at least 3-4 years until Tannehill.

 

Harvin won the year after, but the #1 pick got injured and missed the entire season. Had Stafford been healthy, he could have been the ROY. Regardless, now you take Stafford instead of Harvin.

 

After that, it's been Bradford, Newton, and RG3...that would be #1 pick, #1 pick, #2 pick (and the #1 certainly wasn't no slouch either).

 

 

If anything, recent trend shows that if there's a QB there worth taking #1 or #2....then you take them.

---

I guess we get to look forward to an entire offseason of TMD inserting his schtick into every thread.

 

Get a job bro.

---

;

;

This team clearly wasn't good enough to beat any good teams.

 

I would argue that this team was worse than every team we beat also.  So Credit to Bradley, for winning 4 games with inferior talent.

 

But the players and the coach need to coach and play to win.  If we win, I can't possibly be mad at it.  And you know what?  It made this season more enjoyable.  It really did.  You don't go to the games, so you wouldn't know.. but losing even 27-20 is OK in my mind like we did late in this year.  But it was also FUN to be at the Thursday night game and see our team win.  We played hard and we won, simple as that. 

 

Life is short.  I will enjoy every victory that I can. 

 

What bad team is? Yet it usually happens at least once in a rookie coach's season if he's a good one. Jack had a bad roster, yet beat the Colts his rookie year. 

 

The Jags roster was not "-200 point differential" bad, Sorry, but I don't accept it. 

 

They could & should have played a lot of those games closer. There should have been at least one win vs a good team. Bradley may or may not be a good coach, but I indeed believe that the Coordinators are simply not very good. The DC has a precedent of mediocrity at the post, and the OC has bounced around even the college ranks. 

 

If Gus is going to be a successful head coach, he's going to have to improve both Coordinator positions, IMO. If he does not, they will be his downfall as a head coach. 

---

Those wins absolutely did help us in a way: by creating the winning culture we need to succeed when better players arrive next spinrg. If you don't play to win, you won't win.

 

But we lost our last two games...both to division rivals, with one being a blowout.

---

Dude.

 

Seriously.

 

There is no "faux" of winning. There are never meaningless wins. Because ...

 

Some of us might be DEAD before next season starts. We have men and women in our armed forces who would kill to watch a Jag game from a seat in Everbank, or from a bar in Pennsylvania. There are only 16 games a year (sometimes more if you're good). Each game is a jewel ... to be enjoyed (win or lose). Life is short. Enjoy your Sunday. That's all. That's it.

 

"Tanking" doesn't ever happen in the NFL. Sure, sometimes wheels fall off but no one ever does it on purpose. That's the "faux"you need to grasp.

 

.....Keep telling youself that as the Colts and Texans both had out of nowhere worst records in the NFL the year when a great QB just happened to be available and they both happened to need one. 

 

The order to tank comes from the Owner who sees the "bigger picture" and knows what adding Luck and Bridgewater will do for both those teams. 

 

In the Houston case, I don't think they set out to tank from the onset, like the Colts did, but by midseason, there was no doubt the Texans at that point knew what their mission was. Bridgewater. 

---

.....Keep telling youself that as the Colts and Texans both had out of nowhere worst records in the NFL the year when a great QB just happened to be available and they both happened to need one. 

 

The order to tank comes from the Owner who sees the "bigger picture" and knows what adding Luck and Bridgewater will do for both those teams. 

 

In the Houston case, I don't think they set out to tank from the onset, like the Colts did, but by midseason, there was no doubt the Texans at that point knew what their mission was. Bridgewater. 

 

It happens every year. The Redskins, Falcons and Vikings all fell from the playoffs to three of the worst teams in the league. Did they tank?

---

;

;

It happens every year. The Redskins, Falcons and Vikings all fell from the playoffs to three of the worst teams in the league. Did they tank?

Of course...but they just did it the wrong way. They're not sophisticated enough to tank the TMD way

---

Let me pose a direct question to you, TMD.

 

What did you want this team to do?  Sabotage the season, apparently.  But I want to know HOW.

 

Who would you have started instead of who? 

 

What kind of message does it send to start a Reynolds instead of Poz for example?

 

What kind of message does it send to start Denard Robinson ahead of MJD or Todman?

 

I would love to know HOW you would have tanked to assure the top pick.  Give me specific examples, keeping in mind that Bradley is coaching for his job, his livelihood, and to improve his team.

 

I'm sick of you just complaining. Tell us exactly how you would have achieved all the losses.

 

If you're winning by a TD, would you have pulled the starters?  Would you have played schemes you know your players can't play well?  Would you put Poz at CB and Gratz at MLB?  Give me specific examples how you would have tanked.

 

Dude, its a lot easier than you think to get the desired outcome i,e, losses to tank a season....In both the Colts and Texans cases it was done by horrible QB play. The Texans even stayed with an obviously inferior Keenum despite Schaub being the better chance for wins - we saw that in the Jags game when Schaub almost led a come from behind win. Then the next week they went right back to Keenum. They knew what they were doing. McNair at that point was full speed ahead for the #1 overall and wanted nothing to disrupt that. 

 

The Colts did the same thing, but from the outset in 2011. They didn't even try to get a legit QB on that roster, despite knowing Peyton would likely not be available. 

 

The Jags might have attained the top pick, had they merely started Gabbert all season. 

---

It happens every year. The Redskins, Falcons and Vikings all fell from the playoffs to three of the worst teams in the league. Did they tank?

Nope. Skins didnt even have a first rounder to tankfor


N the falcons blew their last two games

---

Bro, you have to be in denial. 

 

Luck is very good. Franchise level QB good. He is elite.

 

Do you realize how little he had on offense this year, especially post-Reggie Wayne????

 

They have zero running game to help offset the passing game, too. 

 

If Luck was placed on our offense even minus Blackmon, he'd be posting monster numbers. With Blackmon it would be ridiculous numbers. 

 

 

Only in Jaguar land can a QB who took a 2-win team to back-to-back playoff appearances (and 1 divisional championship) be considered not good while they revel in the glory of Chad "Clutch" Henne as being "good enough that we don't need to pick the top QB".

 

Meanwhile, the Jaguars haven't won a Divisional Championship since..oh wait, we haven't won the AFCS Division championship...and haven't been to the playoffs since 2007.

---

Only in Jaguar land can a QB who took a 2-win team to back-to-back playoff appearances (and 1 divisional championship) be considered not good while they revel in the glory of Chad "Clutch" Henne as being "good enough that we don't need to pick the top QB".

 

Meanwhile, the Jaguars haven't won a Divisional Championship since..oh wait, we haven't won the AFCS Division championship...and haven't been to the playoffs since 2007.

 

Who, anywhere, said that they want Henne starting for the Jaguars next year? I've yet to see that from anybody.

 

But hey, it's your story, so tell it how you want I guess.

---

Only in Jaguar land can a QB who took a 2-win team to back-to-back playoff appearances (and 1 divisional championship) be considered not good while they revel in the glory of Chad "Clutch" Henne as being "good enough that we don't need to pick the top QB".

 

Meanwhile, the Jaguars haven't won a Divisional Championship since..oh wait, we haven't won the AFCS Division championship...and haven't been to the playoffs since 2007.

 

What stories are you making up?

---

;

;

Dude, its a lot easier than you think to get the desired outcome i,e, losses to tank a season....In both the Colts and Texans cases it was done by horrible QB play. The Texans even stayed with an obviously inferior Keenum despite Schaub being the better chance for wins - we saw that in the Jags game when Schaub almost led a come from behind win. Then the next week they went right back to Keenum. They knew what they were doing. McNair at that point was full speed ahead for the #1 overall and wanted nothing to disrupt that.


The Colts did the same thing, but from the outset in 2011. They didn't even try to get a legit QB on that roster, despite knowing Peyton would likely not be available.


The Jags might have attained the top pick, had they merely started Gabbert all season.

In the second Texans-Jags game, when the Jags were dominating, why did the Texans make a change to Shaub? It gave the Texans a much needed spark and they nearly won the game. Who do that if the goal is to lose?


How does that factor into your lose-on-purpose fairy tale?

---

Only in Jaguar land can a QB who took a 2-win team to back-to-back playoff appearances (and 1 divisional championship) be considered not good while they revel in the glory of Chad "Clutch" Henne as being "good enough that we don't need to pick the top QB".

 

Meanwhile, the Jaguars haven't won a Divisional Championship since..oh wait, we haven't won the AFCS Division championship...and haven't been to the playoffs since 2007.

 

Seriously have not read one person post this. 

 

But whatever.

---

Dude, its a lot easier than you think to get the desired outcome i,e, losses to tank a season....In both the Colts and Texans cases it was done by horrible QB play. The Texans even stayed with an obviously inferior Keenum despite Schaub being the better chance for wins - we saw that in the Jags game when Schaub almost led a come from behind win. Then the next week they went right back to Keenum. They knew what they were doing. McNair at that point was full speed ahead for the #1 overall and wanted nothing to disrupt that. 

 

The Colts did the same thing, but from the outset in 2011. They didn't even try to get a legit QB on that roster, despite knowing Peyton would likely not be available. 

 

The Jags might have attained the top pick, had they merely started Gabbert all season. 

 

Where does Kubiak's tanking severance bonus fit into this? I forget.

---

;

;

In the second Texans-Jags game, when the Jags were dominating, why did the Texans make a change to Shaub? It gave the Texans a much needed spark and they nearly won the game. Who do that if the goal is to lose?


How does that factor into your lose-on-purpose fairy tale?

 

Well, because they have to at least try to give the perception that they are trying to win, at the very least so they can convince the gullible sect of NFL fan that they are not tanking. They probably figured Schaub would get close but not enough to pull it out, which is pretty much what happened. McNair must have been nervous though in those last seconds. Probably radioed down to Schaub before that last INT that a $50,000 Christmas "bonus" was his if he threw one away, which judging by the zero Texans in the area, he clearly did. 

---

Well, because they have to at least try to give the perception that they are trying to win, at the very least so they can convince the gullible sect of NFL fan that they are not tanking. They probably figured Schaub would get close but not enough to pull it out, which is pretty much what happened. McNair must have been nervous though in those last seconds. Probably radioed down to Schaub before that last INT that a $50,000 Christmas "bonus" was his if he threw one away, which judging by the zero Texans in the area, he clearly did.

Lol. Wow.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."