Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Embrace the suck said:

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. 

Keep assuming that it isn’t true just like thee above quoted we think different and that’s ok.I don’t subscribe to winning the off season lottery you guys do again as above it’s ok each to there own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A lesson to some of you, sometimes you have to lose a battle to in the war. Those 3 wins at the end of last year obviously did not carry over any momentum to this season, did not inspire our coaches o

Yup..,,this team would be 5-1 instead of 1-5 if we had tanked (purposely lost) those 3 games.    lesson learned. 

No it wouldn’t. Purposefully losing breeds A losing culture. See Cleveland browns for last 20 years.  

15 minutes ago, kiwifalcon said:

Keep assuming that it isn’t true just like thee above quoted we think different and that’s ok.I don’t subscribe to winning the off season lottery you guys do again as above it’s ok each to there own.

Which is the problem with this losing franchise. We keep losing the off season lottery which is why we are experiencing a 2 year slump. Hopefully the next GM/HC combo would know what to do with our picks. 

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

Which is the problem with this losing franchise. We keep losing the off season lottery which is why we are experiencing a 2 year slump. Hopefully the next GM/HC combo would know what to do with our picks. 

Please that’s not the problem at all where we are picking it’s what we do with what we’ve picked once it gets in the door.

Coaching and use of is the issue we are facing before worrying about where we are picking.

 

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

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.

See, that’s my point Sun Tzu. Yes, a warrior will sacrifice himself for the greater good......but that’s not the same thing.....at all.....with tanking. There’s nothing Warrior or honorable in doing that. So yes, theoretically higher draft picks are more valuable, but not if you did something against your character (intentionally losing) to get them. What goes around does come back around if intentionally losing.
 

And I also disagree this is a “Straight up bottom 5 team”. They’ve certainly played like one, but we all know they should be playing a lot better than they have. Higher draft picks....unless they they were also coaches....wouldn’t have changed any of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?

 

 

Sorry if that hurt your feelings. But tying tanking to “giving up territory” in war was quite the stretch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vandy said:

Re: Browns

But again, that’s my point. Intentionally losing bleeds into a team’s culture. 

I don't see how you intentionally lose?  You can't get the players to do that because they need to play hard regardless of record and draft position because it's their livelihood.  There is always the executive decision I suppose to sit players so maybe that's what you mean by intentionally losing?  The way our starters are playing(mostly on defense) if we started sitting players and playing backups we would ironically probably start winning games.  That's one thing I don't understand.  Why doesn't Quinn play some of the backups and see what we have???  Our season is toast anyway.  Let's see what we have with Grace, Foye, Ollison, Hill etc.  I actually thought Sheffield looked pretty good yesterday.  This defense isn't working.  Obviously.  The scheme sucks but maybe, just maybe, the personnel does too.  Give some of the other guys a shot.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mescalito said:

I don't see how you intentionally lose?  You can't get the players to do that because they need to play hard regardless of record and draft position because it's their livelihood. 

Good point.  "Getting the players and coaches to intentionally lose" is a strawman.  No one is advocating that.

The organization should have used the last few games last year to evaluate and develop the overall roster.  Essentially treat the games like an enhanced preseason.  Every play and coach plays at 100%, but the eye being on evaluation, game experience and execution rather than the scoreboard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Embrace the suck said:

, 97 Spurs tanked for Tim Duncan. There are many instances where it works. 

 

You named two, and one of those is wrong. The Spurs didn't tank. David Robinson had a bad back that kept him out two months. While he was gone, Sean Elliott got hurt. Then, Robinson came back and promptly broke his foot, ending his season. They didn't tank. They just didn't have their best two players.

To a larger point, for a situation that you're stating is so cut and dried, it's interesting that you've only named one example in any sport. Also, Boston tanked like crazy the Tim Duncan year. They drafted #3 and #6 after losing the lottery. Pitino got fired with a 102-146 record as Celtics coach/GM. That's how tanking almost always works.

Across all sports, the only undeniable example of successful tanking is the Houston Astros, and it happened for two reasons. One is that they hit on several high MLB draft choices, a mathematical impossibility in a sport where 40% of first round picks never make the majors. The other is that they revolutionized analytics in the sport to the degree that a division competitor committed federal crimes to steal their data.

Otherwise, tanking is something that many teams have tried. They've had no problem with the losing part. It's the winning championships part that hasn't gone well. I mean, the Lakers tanked for several years and just gave away almost all of those players in a single trade. Philly's still begging fans to Trust the Process despite the fact that most of the players they drafted that way have washed out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jidady said:

Otherwise, tanking is something that many teams have tried. They've had no problem with the losing part. It's the winning championships part that hasn't gone well. I mean, the Lakers tanked for several years and just gave away almost all of those players in a single trade. Philly's still begging fans to Trust the Process despite the fact that most of the players they drafted that way have washed out.

The NBA is pretty much the only team sport where teams go into a season with the plan to actively tank.  

In other sports, the approach is more to have a "fire sale" during the season once the year is considered a bust.  (Baseball has some weird exceptions)

In this thread, what many are calling "tanking" is really just playing your depth players more and shutting down some of your starters once the season is lost.  Essentially an enhanced preseason mode.

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

You named two, and one of those is wrong. The Spurs didn't tank. David Robinson had a bad back that kept him out two months. While he was gone, Sean Elliott got hurt. Then, Robinson came back and promptly broke his foot, ending his season. They didn't tank. They just didn't have their best two players.

To a larger point, for a situation that you're stating is so cut and dried, it's interesting that you've only named one example in any sport. Also, Boston tanked like crazy the Tim Duncan year. They drafted #3 and #6 after losing the lottery. Pitino got fired with a 102-146 record as Celtics coach/GM. That's how tanking almost always works.

Across all sports, the only undeniable example of successful tanking is the Houston Astros, and it happened for two reasons. One is that they hit on several high MLB draft choices, a mathematical impossibility in a sport where 40% of first round picks never make the majors. The other is that they revolutionized analytics in the sport to the degree that a division competitor committed federal crimes to steal their data.

Otherwise, tanking is something that many teams have tried. They've had no problem with the losing part. It's the winning championships part that hasn't gone well. I mean, the Lakers tanked for several years and just gave away almost all of those players in a single trade. Philly's still begging fans to Trust the Process despite the fact that most of the players they drafted that way have washed out.

Spurs are widely considered a tank. That team was much better than their record. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we're starting to see it bleed over into other sports. Miami is actively tanking. The team said it'd revolt if they traded Tunsil. Then, they traded Tunsil. It's that sort of thing. But the comments people are making here are right.

Tanking's potential benefits diminish with the number of players on the field. In a five-on-five game, a superstar can carry a team like Wade did with Miami before LeBron ever got there. In MLB, it has to be what happened with Houston where all of the position players turn out, allowing them to trade for pitchers.

In the NFL, the Jets tried it, and Mangini wound up never getting a head coaching gig again. With 11 on 11, there's just too much going on for a single non-QB to make that kind of an impact. And even the great QBs can only do so much. Green Bay's 23-22-1 over the past three seasons.

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

Spurs are widely considered a tank. That team was much better than their record. 

Anyone who says that is engaging in revisionist history. Bob Hill and Dennis Rodman (who wasn't even there anymore) had that team in turmoil. Pops was the GM at the time and was so frustrated by the underachieving that he took over the head coaching gig. I didn't even mention it in the previous reply but Rifleman missed the entire year, too. Their best player in 96 was Dominique Wilkins (!), who was 37 at the time.

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

I don't see how you intentionally lose?  You can't get the players to do that because they need to play hard regardless of record and draft position because it's their livelihood.  There is always the executive decision I suppose to sit players so maybe that's what you mean by intentionally losing?  The way our starters are playing(mostly on defense) if we started sitting players and playing backups we would ironically probably start winning games.  That's one thing I don't understand.  Why doesn't Quinn play some of the backups and see what we have???  Our season is toast anyway.  Let's see what we have with Grace, Foye, Ollison, Hill etc.  I actually thought Sheffield looked pretty good yesterday.  This defense isn't working.  Obviously.  The scheme sucks but maybe, just maybe, the personnel does too.  Give some of the other guys a shot.  

I’m all for that. But that’s not tanking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jidady said:

Anyone who says that is engaging in revisionist history. Bob Hill and Dennis Rodman (who wasn't even there anymore) had that team in turmoil. Pops was the GM at the time and was so frustrated by the underachieving that he took over the head coaching gig. I didn't even mention it in the previous reply but Rifleman missed the entire year, too. Their best player in 96 was Dominique Wilkins (!), who was 37 at the time.

Most ball fans consider that a tank job. They were a 59 win the season prior. 

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

Most ball fans consider that a tank job. They were a 59 win the season prior. 

I watched every game I could that season. I say again that the only team that other execs believed was tanking was Boston. San Antonio was a franchise in turmoil due to Rodman's postseason meltdown the prior year, Hill's losing the team, and injuries wiping out 60% of their starting lineup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...