MAD597

So those 3 wins at the end of last year? Great momentum huh?

303 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, JeffAtl said:

Battle?  If we're going there, armies have always given up territory for strategic gain.  Hannibal at the battle of Cannae is a prime example.

If we return to reality, think of sacrificing a piece in chess or a forcing a jump in checkers.

 

Now that's one load of crap. "Giving up territory" is not exactly the same thing as intentionally losing. 

Art of War talks alot about keys to winning which begins and ends in how you treat your troops. To ask them to lie down and intentionally lose a battle would be one of the most demoralizing things any general (or in this case, coach) could do to his troops. They may strategically lose to gain territory, but no general is gonna ask a soldier to die without fighting.

You tankers are ******* crazy.   

kiwifalcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ergo Proxy said:

We benched Alford for Oliver. That didn't carry over.

Quinn decided after the fact to change both offensive and defensive coordinators.

Momentum didn't translate because too much changed.

BUT you aren't seriously suggesting the Falcons would've lost on purpose?

Doesn't. Happen.

Therefore, both sides of the argument are wishful in their thinking at best.

One wants more discipline to be learned on the job and translate to next year. Another wants a higher pick.

Why can't we have both? You aren't out tanking last years Cards or Bucs team.

Actually they didn't bench Alford for Oliver.

Oliver got a little more playing time but Alford still had a majority of the snaps.  Oliver got about 20 snaps a game where Alford was still getting over 75% of the snaps.

Now if Oliver had been getting 100% of the snaps maybe he plays better this season.

Osiruz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

Actually they didn't bench Alford for Oliver.

Oliver got a little more playing time but Alford still had a majority of the snaps.  Oliver got about 20 snaps a game where Alford was still getting over 75% of the snaps.

Now if Oliver had been getting 100% of the snaps maybe he plays better this season.

Good catch. I was mistaken.

I probably was thinking of Means > Reed?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/O/OlivIs00/fantasy/2018

Yeah...so point is still valid. Alford started getting less playing time and he was very bad last year. Playing him actually supports trying to lose. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JeffAtl said:

Battle? lol

If we're going there, armies have always given up territory for long-term strategic gain.  Hannibal at the battle of Cannae is a prime example.

If we return to reality, think of sacrificing a piece in chess or a forcing a jump in checkers.

 

That’s the thing though there’s no guarantee of picking higher is going to help us.

Ive played alot of team sport over the years and we weed out character traits like this.

If you as an organisation adhere to a thought process of giving up when your not going well forget about draft picking early you got bigger issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Now that's one load of crap. "Giving up territory" is not exactly the same thing as intentionally losing. 

War of Art talks alot about keys to winning which begins and ends in how you treat your troops. To ask them to lie down and intentionally lose a battle would be one of the most demoralizing things any general (or in this case, coach) could do to his troops. They may strategically lose to gain territory, but no general is gonna ask a soldier to die without fighting.

You tankers are ******* crazy.   

Chess move though Vandy go out half hearted to get your *** kicked lol.

I’d be **** scared if any of these guys were in charge.

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vandy said:

So it's a "monumental falcons fail" if you don't intentionally lose?

 

That's some ******-up warped 'thinking' going on inside your brain there, pardner.

We lost in the draft sweep stakes. If you are going to have a sorry season at least do it right. The problem is many here are primitive in thinking and can't think strategy or past 2+2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kiwifalcon said:

Chess move though Vandy go out half hearted to get your *** kicked lol.

I’d be **** scared if any of these guys were in charge.

That's the thing.  You and your friend are so emotional about this.  It's kind of weird how you make it so personal.

Why can everyone else (on both sides) talk about it calmly and insightfully, but you two reflexively devolve into insults?

 

 

MAD597, vitaman and Osiruz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kiwifalcon said:

Chess move though Vandy go out half hearted to get your *** kicked lol.

I’d be **** scared if any of these guys were in charge.

Sacrificing troops was done by some of the greatest generals in history like Genghis khan, or the Japanese imperial army (Kamikazis). Its a good tactic if it leads to the greater good if done effectively. 

MAD597 and MilleniumFalcon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Embrace the suck said:

We lost in the draft sweep stakes. If you are going to have a sorry season at least do it right. The problem is many here are primitive in thinking and can't think strategy or past 2+2. 

You insult others by implying we don't understand a higher draft pick has more value.

The delusion is with thinking any team ON THE FIELD intentionally loses.

... I'll wait.

jidady and kiwifalcon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Embrace the suck said:

we lost in the draft sweep stakes. If you are going to have a sorry season at least do it right. The problem is many here are primitive in thinking and can't think strategy or past 2+2. 

Who gives a **** about winning the “draft sweepstakes” man (besides guy tankers I guess)? That’s never been the key to winning, in football and even moreso in life. 

Winning is about coaching, character, fundamentals and strategy. The day my “primitive thinking” buys into your “advanced” philosophy of intentionally losing by not trying to do and be my best is the day I hope they put me under. 
 

Selah.
 

 

kiwifalcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ergo Proxy said:

You insult others by implying we don't understand a higher draft pick has more value.

The delusion is with thinking any team ON THE FIELD intentionally loses.

... I'll wait.

I personally think the Niners were much better than their record last year. 03 cavs tanked for Lebron, 97 Spurs tanked for Tim Duncan. There are many instances where it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vandy said:

Who gives a **** about winning the “draft sweepstakes” man? That’s never been the key tI winning. 

Winning is about coaching, character, fundamentals and strategy. The day my “primitive thinking” buys into your “advanced” philosophy of intentionally losing by not trying to do and be my best is the day I hope they put me under. 
 

 

Players not plays right? If you have the right players it will help you execute plays. 

vitaman and MilleniumFalcon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Embrace the suck said:

I personally think the Niners were much better than their record last year. 03 cavs tanked for Lebron, 97 Spurs tanked for Tim Duncan. There are many instances where it works. 

N....

B....

A...

C'mon. Niners vastly underperformed last year...but guess what? Jimmy G was hurt.

Ryan?

C'mon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Embrace the suck said:

Players not plays right? If you have the right players it will help you execute plays. 

So you can only find the right players in Top 10 picks of draft? Do I really need to show you all the busts that come from there? 
 

NFL draft has never been an exact science. See Cleveland browns and their culture of losing/tanking over last two decades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ergo Proxy said:

It's funny watching people dream players that actually care about being paid or having a roster spot would ever tank willingly.

We played rookies and backups last year.

You basically are asking the Falcons to sit Ryan and Julio for 3 straight games.

Yeah, the NFL would have a problem with that.

Yeah players/coaches don't tank. This is known. 

 

But we'd be better off losing as many games as we can at this point.  

MAD597, vitaman and Osiruz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rbad8717 said:

Don't understand why tanking is such a big issue. The players and coaches will never willingly lose a game, so its irrelevant if we think it's a good idea if the team loses or not.

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HEIST said:

Yeah players/coaches don't tank. This is known. 

 

But we'd be better off losing as many games as we can at this point.  

And yet being okay with losing and it happening and getting a higher draft pick is one thing.

Expecting it to happen or imagining it's a plan inside the building?

You have to do the Raiders or Dolphins of this year and sell out before week 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Embrace the suck said:

I personally think the Niners were much better than their record last year. 03 cavs tanked for Lebron, 97 Spurs tanked for Tim Duncan. There are many instances where it works. 

NBA has five starters playing both offense and defense. It makes huge difference if you hit on one or two guys.

vel, kiwifalcon and Schwarzwald like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JeffAtl said:

That's the thing.  You and your friend are so emotional about this.  It's kind of weird how you make it so personal.

Why can everyone else (on both sides) talk about it calmly and insightfully, but you two reflexively devolve into insults?

 

 

Not emotional at all.

I just don’t get with the mindset you and others are portraying.

I personally would never subside or give up situation regardless.

You think different that’s fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Now that's one load of crap. "Giving up territory" is not exactly the same thing as intentionally losing. 

War of Art talks alot about keys to winning which begins and ends in how you treat your troops. To ask them to lie down and intentionally lose a battle would be one of the most demoralizing things any general (or in this case, coach) could do to his troops. They may strategically lose to gain territory, but no general is gonna ask a soldier to die without fighting.

You tankers are ******* crazy.   

The Art of War talks about preparing for war.  
Of course it also talks about a lot of other things... like occupying an enemy city is one of the most costliest things you can do.

Anyway, there are also these things called strategic retreats.  If you’ve ever played a real time strategy game you might be familiar with this concept where you purposely ditch/destroy/recycle a base so you can fortify other areas.

A good general wouldn’t ask soldiers to intentionally lie down and lose a battle.  However,  commanders throughout history have asked soldiers to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.  Spartans at Thermopylae, (aka 300), for example.

And this concept is everywhere.  Sacrificing pawns for example.

Again,  the Falcons aren’t going to tank so that’s a pointless debate but at the end of the day higher draft picks are going to have more value.  People are getting fired and there’s going to be significant roster churn regardless.

The good news is that the tank thing doesn’t matter.  Thanks to the defense this is a straight up bottom 5 team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeffAtl said:

By that logic, smart teams should trade all of their draft picks for cash.

By your logic every losing team should be in a race for the bottom.

Schwarzwald likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

Actually they didn't bench Alford for Oliver.

Oliver got a little more playing time but Alford still had a majority of the snaps.  Oliver got about 20 snaps a game where Alford was still getting over 75% of the snaps.

Now if Oliver had been getting 100% of the snaps maybe he plays better this season.

Winner winner chicken dinner. Should have used the last few games to see what we had with Kz, Oliver, snot, gage, and oluokant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ergo Proxy said:

N....

B....

A...

C'mon. Niners vastly underperformed last year...but guess what? Jimmy G was hurt.

Ryan?

C'mon.

Beathard was balling. They really did look like they lost a few games intentionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kiwifalcon said:

Not emotional at all.

I just don’t get with the mindset you and others are portraying.

I personally would never subside or give up situation regardless.

You think different that’s fine.

I think you are emotional you and the other irrational unto death fella. When you die I wanna make sure it's not in vain. It's a strategic retreat which is helpful when the cupboard is bare. Could have traded down got Lindstrom and an extra 2nd which we could have used to draft Rock Yasin, or Eric McCoy. Our OL would have been set for the next 5 years with Mccoy, Lindstrom, and McGary. 

JeffAtl likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now