Week 17 of last season...

[Sgt Schultz]

The best chance at purposely losing a game comes by fielding players who can't collectively win ("evaluating our roster").  Short of playing people out of their position, the Panthers did that (and may have been actually evaluating their roster), but the problem is, the Saints were doing the same thing to avoid any injuries heading into the playoffs.

If there is any consolation, the same question can be asked in New Orleans, in reverse.  They had a first round bye sewn up, so that meant a week layoff for the playoffs.  Even the Pats have looked rusty in that situation over the years.  Then you sit your starters for week 17, meaning they will not have been in a competitive situation for almost three weeks when they next take the field.  The results that support that question are that they looked like something less than world beaters against the Eagles, a game they managed to win, and then didn't look unstoppable against the Rams, when their season ended.  Perhaps you could raise more questions because they looked mortal since week 13 (the loss to Dallas) and could have used the game to get some sort of "mojo back."  So you ensure they are healthy at the cost of a very long layoff and not "tuning them up" for the playoff push.

On balance, I'd rather be shrugging my shoulders at the loss of 7 or so draft spots than having arguably peaked too soon and then missed a chance to right the ship by taking an extra week off before the scheduled week off.  In fairness to them, somebody does that every few years entering the playoffs, they did not blaze a new trail.

Asking professional athletes, whether they are starters, backups, or backups to the backups, to go out there an look like dog poo, is not in their best or instinctive interests. 

[SetfreexX]

You always play to win the game, BUT this isn't HS, or College. 

This is the NFL, it is a BUSINESS as well, one thing you DON'T do in a business is not put yourself in the BEST position long run. Tanking a week 17 game is not something that carries over when most of the starters shouldn't have been playing in the first place outside in positions where it can't be helped (OL)

[panthers55]

59 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Nope, we have had this debate. I stand by the fact we should have sat Newton for a game to see if he could heal up. You are a complete mediocracy pusher and excuse maker for a pack of people with enough history to actually hold them accountable for who and what they are.

And you were wrong then and still are. Your blaming the coaches for everything gets old and tiresome. And I want to win as badly as anyone and pay thousands of dollars to see the Panthers play in person. So the whole notion that I would pay lots of money for us to lose is ridiculous. But holding someone accountable isn't the same as blaming the head coach or front office for everything including things they had little control over. Your notion of accountability is only limited to coaches and the front office but apparently the players who actually play the game are totally blameless or somehow victims.

[panthers55]

8 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

You always play to win the game, BUT this isn't HS, or College. 

This is the NFL, it is a BUSINESS as well, one thing you DON'T do in a business is not put yourself in the BEST position long run. Tanking a week 17 game is not something that carries over when most of the starters shouldn't have been playing in the first place outside in positions where it can't be helped (OL)

Again never happens and is totally against all the things coaches and players are taught from grade school. And yes a loser mentality does carry over. Ask Tampa.

[steven8989]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've seen that theory a lot on here.

It's an interesting question.

Yeah and everyone thinks Allen is going to be this great qb or something.  They was not even calling plays and just trying to get through game without any injuries. Even the coaching staff thinks we don't need someone behind Cam. Well guess what if he is not ready or arm don't last get ready for a really high pick next year. 

[Waldo]

Just now, panthers55 said:

And you were wrong then and still are. Your blaming the coaches for everything gets old and tiresome. And I want to win as badly as anyone and pay thousands of dollars to see the Panthers play in person. So the whole notion that I would pay lots of money for us to lose is ridiculous. But holding someone accountable isn't the same as blaming the head coach or front office for everything including things they had little control over. Your notion of accountability is only limited to coaches and the front office but apparently the players who actually play the game are totally blameless or somehow victims.

The HC and front office are repet offenders and top of the list for years now. Poop rolls down hill. You give them no accountability or responsibility. I do. Those two are veterans at avoiding accountability, Rivera just blames players for his own teams performance constantly. That's a damn fact. You are an absolute apologist. There is plenty of blame to go around but by the time you get past those two's constant failures, the majority is spent. Again, saying Cam's failure to magicly be healthy after getting creamed for half a year is laughable. He is imperfect, sure, but how about Funchase starting over Moore or Samuel when he was flopping out there? Or sitting and cutting CJ when he sure as hell could have helped? If making excuses helps you justify how you spend your money, that's your bag. I'm not carrying it around. I'll pay to show up and cheer and boo accordingly.

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, Proudiddy said:

Like I said, it's gamesmanship.  Sure, we would've had to "out-lose" them, but we could have if Ron didn't go in there with the mindset that it was a meaningful game from the outset.  He and Norv called the game to win from the opening kickoff.  Payton didn't.  Hell, I'd tell Allen to toss a few up into coverage if need be...  but, nope, Ron wanted the cheap, meaningless win.

Ron and Norv thought their best chance of winning the game involved benching CMC and Luke in the first quarter? Hmm...interesting winning strategy there.

 

This is exactly why I can’t take the Rivera haters seriously...the ONE time he gets the sole credit for a win on here is when it conveniently fits their agenda that he is a terrible coach lol. Any other wins we get? Naw that’s all on the players, in spite of Rivera’s horrible coaching. Winning a meaningless Week 17 game that drops us 8 spots in the draft? That’s ALL on Rivera...our backups who went in there and played their hearts out and outplayed the opposing team’s backups? Naw they get zero credit for the win. That maniacal genius Payton just laughing on the sidelines about how he tanked our draft pick by tanking that game!! What a genius, making Ron look like an absolute fool. I mean, let’s ignore that the Saints also failed to make it to the Super Bowl and now draft 15 spots behind us...he’s in a hell of a position to be laughing at us about our draft position. What a genius!!

[trueblade]

I just can't see going into any week hoping my Panthers lose. I get how 8 versus 16 is a big of a difference. It is. I acknowledge and accept the cost. I still wanted to win.

[Davidson Deac II]

12 hours ago, MillionDollarCam said:

Funny enough the Hornets are soon going to find themselves in the same position as the Panthers.

Regardless, the story is always going to be the same. Competitors like to compete and Kyle Allen was going to play to win regardless of what we as a fanbase wanted.

I think it makes more sense in bball as One player can make a tremendous difference.  In football, unless the player is a qb, its impossible to predict if draft pick #9 or # 16 is going to increase your chances of getting to the SB.  

[Davidson Deac II]

Cleveland has averaged a top 10 pick for the last 15 years, and it has meant little to them.  I think this past year is considered to be their best year in a while, and they still didn't make the playoffs.  New England hasn't had a top 10 pick in a long time, and they are in the SB consistently.  Of course, those two teams are the extreme ends of the NFL, and their results don't prove anything in and of themselves,  but imo top 10 picks aren't as important as some make them out to be.  

[Toomers]

15 minutes ago, trueblade said:

I just can't see going into any week hoping my Panthers lose. I get how 8 versus 16 is a big of a difference. It is. I acknowledge and accept the cost. I still wanted to win.

Would you have liked to have an extra 2nd round pick to help win games 1-16 next year. Or is the “feeling” of winning a glorified preseason game enough to cover that?

[tiger7_88]

11 hours ago, t96 said:

Always play to win. Always, no matter the circumstances. That’s my opinion and I don’t think anyone could convince me otherwise that it’s ever better to lose. That’s a terrible mentality that carries over to when the games really do matter.

In a vacuum-sealed mayonnaise jar stored on the porch of Funk and Wagnall's, yes.  (<--- the old people in this forum will understand the reference)

In a world (and sport) with way more than one moving part, no.

[tiger7_88]

11 hours ago, micnificent28 said:

Centers don't normally go in the first round...I can't remember the last one that did. 

The Pouncey twins in 2010 (Maurkice to Pittsburgh with pick #18) and 2011 (Mike to Miami with pick #15), I think.

Maurkice Pouncey - 7 Pro Bowls, 5 All-Pros (both 1st and 2nd team) in 9 years.

Mike Pouncey - 4 Pro Bowls in 8 years.

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

In a vacuum-sealed mayonnaise jar stored on the porch of Funk and Wagnall's, yes.  (<--- the old people in this forum will understand the reference)

In a world (and sport) with way more than one moving part, no.

Sim solabim.