Week 17 of last season...

[Basbear]

17 hours ago, Moo Daeng said:

I asked how you go about tanking a game beyond resting key players. I asked how you tell these guys to not try. Nobody answered. 

"Kyle, here is your chance to start. Don't try"  LOL

Replicate preseason game with a heavy focus on putting young players in situations they need improvements on.

So simple a caveman could do it. 

[falconidae]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Below I list the times that #9 has been traded for #16 with no additional compensation...

So, I'll ask the question that I asked a few pages back. If tanking makes so much sense, why don't teams do it all the time? Why can't any of the advocates of tanking show me teams that tanked?  I keep hearing, "Oh teams tank all the time." and I say which teams tanked and here's the response I get:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Basbear]

6 hours ago, Happy Panther said:

Yes it matters. If we really want a CB and Atlanta snags a great CB then bummer.

All i am saying is the talent level you get at 9 vs 16 is minimal. Some folks are saying we are missing out on a generational player because we didn't get a higher pick. It's not true.

At last, someone understands!

It truly does depend on the draft class, I have no idea if the difference between 9 top players and 16 is vast on the Panthers board. I will add teams run different systems and have differences in philosophy, out of those 7 picks in theory the Panthers could get the same player at 9 and 16. Those stating "generational player" difference are going to extremes. 

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, falconidae said:

So, I'll ask the question that I asked a few pages back. If tanking makes so much sense, why don't teams do it all the time? Why can't any of the advocates of tanking show me teams that tanked?  I keep hearing, "Oh teams tank all the time." and I say which teams tanked and here's the response I get:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few years back the Bucs were winning pretty big at half at half in Week 17 against none other than the Saints. They sat their starters at halftime. They lost and that sealed the #1 overall pick.

[Peppers90 NC]

Of course winning hurt our draft position, but I am in no way disappointed our players tried. I can't even imagine trying to convince some professionals to intentionally lose especially when there were three all-time great Panthers playing in their last games in Panthers uniforms. 

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, Happy Panther said:

Yeah I'm just throwing out data. I like data.

And I think we all agree that #9 is worth more than #16. My idea is that is is not about talent. There isn't credible data to say any pick between #9 and #16 really varies in talent historically.

I would maintain that #9 is worth more than #16 because of options. You have your pick and it is more likely you can get your great DE  EDGE at #9 which you need and not have to settle for a great TE or whatever which you don't really need because all the elite EDGEs are gone at #16. Or say take an OL that you could have gotten at #28.

 

Data is great man...data, analytics, and logic: those should comprise the foundation of fruitful discussion and debate. Unfortunately around here, we emphasize emotion over logic.

[Wyank]

7 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

A few years back the Bucs were winning pretty big at half at half in Week 17 against none other than the Saints. They sat their starters at halftime. They lost and that sealed the #1 overall pick.

When? 2014?  Up 20 - 7 at half then lost to the Saints.  Didn't see anything that showed they sat all their starters at half time but dont feel like searching more than I did so I'll just take your word for it.  #1 pick got them Jameis Winston though. Good chance Buc fans wish the team would have ate that W that day instead of tanked. 

 

Edit: I actually did zero search into who actually stepped on the field first snap first half and first snap second half. Quite possibly a perfect example of karma biting the Bucs in the ass for tanking on purpose only to end up with Winston. 

[Daddy_Uncle]

You know the guys on the team wanted to win that game. They don't care about the draft. They don't want to lose to a bunch of back ups just for draft purposes knowing good and well a lot of then won't be on the team next year to reap the rewards of a better draft pick. What I was hoping for doesn't matter. You don't play to lose

 

[falconidae]

17 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

A few years back the Bucs were winning pretty big at half at half in Week 17 against none other than the Saints. They sat their starters at halftime. They lost and that sealed the #1 overall pick.

Only times the Bucs got the number 1 pick were in 2014 and 1985 & 1986. In 2014, Bucs indeed played  the Saints the last game, but their starting QB played the whole game. Doug Martin had 18 carries, Evans had 5 catches and a TD. That's hardly sitting their starters at halftime.

Saints did the same thing in the first game against the bucs that year - came back from an 11 point 4th quarter hole to win in OT.

A 2 win team blowing a 4th quarter lead doesn't require tanking. That was just a bad team. That's before you factor in  they had Lovie Smith as their HC. Really, Peyton  beating Smith hardly requires tanking.

 

Even  if they "tanked" that last game, which I am NOT conceding, they drafted Crab Legs Winston with that pick. Which is more of an example as to why you don't tank.

Same as the year that the Colts got to draft Luck, sure they got  Luck, but both the HC and GM got fired that year. Why tank when it makes it more likely that you won't be around to gain the benefits of tanking?

If teams tanked as often as you think they should, there should be dozens of obvious examples of it happening. And there just isn't.

 

Look, I completely understand the arguments for tanking- more options in the draft, both in the players available and better trade possibilities, plus the odds are better at 9 than at 16. I agree that they make sense on the surface, but, there aren't dozens of easily observed examples of teams tanking. For each example you do come up with, I can up with dozens of teams that didn't tank- including the 2014 Saints, who would have gained 4-8 spots by losing that last game. Or the 2018 Falcons and Panthers.

If it makes so much sense, why don't teams don't do it all the time?

[Sean Payton's Vicodin]

You tank for the higher draft pick. Saints fans literally did not care at all about that game, it was entirely meaningless for them as they had the 1 seed wrapped up.

[pantherclaw]

On 3/3/2019 at 10:00 PM, Palmetto said:

Man if the guy the Panthers draft at 16 isn't a HOFer

we"ll have to hear about week 17 2018 every day

that doesn't phase me. I'm not interested in anybody that thinks intentionally losing, is acceptable, for any reasoning. 

[Palmetto]

18 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

that doesn't phase me. I'm not interested in anybody that thinks intentionally losing, is acceptable, for any reasoning. 

Right! Like i've said before the Team should be able to play to win every game AND be able to draft a great player no matter the draft position