Week 17 of last season...

[tiger7_88]

11 hours ago, t96 said:

The value of building a winning culture

Two words:

Ron Rivera

Going into Ron Rivera: Year Nine.  Are you saying he's finally getting around to working on that winning culture?

Well... its about time, I guess.  Its kind of odd that it took a meaningless, pre-season level, late-season win against a team that wasn't even trying to win to begin establishing a "winning culture" though.

[tiger7_88]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Sim solabim.

May the fleas of 1000 camels infest the armpit hairs of your grandfather.

[mc52beast]

Obviously a coach isn’t going to tell his players to lose a game. He can put the worst players on the field and that’s about it.

Rivera was coaching for his job last year, no way he’s ok with losing the last game of he season cuz it will help their draft position.

 

[Mr. Scot]

34 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

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.  

Just as a rider to this, I'd point out that even among teams who are obviously horrible at roster management, nobody actually thinks of themselves as being bad at roster management.

As the old saying goes, crazy people don't know they're crazy.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, tiger7_88 said:

May the fleas of 1000 camels infest the armpit hairs of your grandfather.

You should head to the Slauson Cutoff and cut off your Slauson.

[panthers55]

2 hours ago, Waldo said:

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.

Wrong again as usual on all counts.

[Wyank]

4 hours ago, hepcat said:

They started all their backups and had an obviously vanilla game plan. It was like they were playing a pre-season game. 

Bolded part is not accurate when you look at Saints snap count. Backs up played but so did most of their starters.  Same as the Panthers. Vanilla game plan might be true.  Probably is true.  It was like a preseason game for both teams.  It is what it is - John Fox. 

 

[Happy Panther]

There isn't a huge difference between #16  and #10. If you look at previous drafts (ignore the last five years or so since they are still green), the majority of players in the top 15 are usually probowlers. On average i would say if you are in the top 25 or so you are possibly getting a major talent. Yes there are counter examples and yes there are busts. A #1 pick can change a franchise. #10 isn't usually going to take a loser to a superbowl.

[Icege]

5 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

There isn't a huge difference between #16  and #10. If you look at previous drafts (ignore the last five years or so since they are still green), the majority of players in the top 15 are usually probowlers. On average i would say if you are in the top 25 or so you are possibly getting a major talent. Yes there are counter examples and yes there are busts. A #1 pick can change a franchise. #10 isn't usually going to take a loser to a superbowl.

Be careful, mouthbreathers will be here to huff and puff that you think "16 is better than 9" while at the same time thinking that a GM with a record of 93-99 and 3 playoff appearances in 12 seasons is better than a GM with a record of 40-23-1 and four playoff appearances during that smaller time frame.

You hit the nail on the head too with your latter point: whoever we get at #9 rather than #16 is NOT the difference between this team winning a Super Bowl or picking #1 overall. We've got 4 picks in the top 100, 5 if we make it the top 115. As much as I don't care for Hurney being the GM, even I can give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll nail at least one of those. 

[LinvilleGorge]

11 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

There isn't a huge difference between #16  and #10. If you look at previous drafts (ignore the last five years or so since they are still green), the majority of players in the top 15 are usually probowlers. On average i would say if you are in the top 25 or so you are possibly getting a major talent. Yes there are counter examples and yes there are busts. A #1 pick can change a franchise. #10 isn't usually going to take a loser to a superbowl.

Except that there is. Literally no one is going to exchange #9 for #16 without substantial additional  trade value added because there isn't a huge difference.

#11 overall pick Ben Roethlisberger won the Super Bowl in his second season. They went from the 6-10 team that drafted him to 15-1 and a trip to the AFC CG with him as a rookie.

[Carl Spackler]

2 hours ago, tiger7_88 said:

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.

Maurkice did all that as the 18th pick? And don't we have the 16th? 

I was told all the good players were gone by then...

[Waldo]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

Wrong again as usual on all counts.

That is some medical grade denial, you may want to get it looked at.

 

[Davidson Deac II]

47 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Except that there is. Literally no one is going to exchange #9 for #16 without substantial additional  trade value added because there isn't a huge difference.

#11 overall pick Ben Roethlisberger won the Super Bowl in his second season. They went from the 6-10 team that drafted him to 15-1 and a trip to the AFC CG with him as a rookie.

Happy is correct imo.  There isn't a huge difference between having a dollar and having a dollar and ten cents, but most people still wont exchange the latter for the former. 

And if the Green Bay Packers had the #1 pick in 2005, they might have picked Alex Smith instead of Aaron Rodgers.  Or bringing it closer to home, if we had the 6th pick in the 05 draft instead of 14th, we might have picked AdamJones instead of Thomas Davis.  The draft is a crap shoot no matter where you pick, but the odds are (slightly) better at 9 than at 16.  But only slightly.  

Statistically I don't think there isn't much difference in the overall success rate of players picked at 9 vs 16.  That doesn't mean there is no difference at all of course.  Just not enough of a difference for the organization to decide to tank a game just to move up a few spots.  Its probably not good for team morale if you intentionally tank a game in order to draft replacements for at least some of the current group of players.

[Basbear]

All those in favor of the win, let me asked this- If the 5th overall was attached to losing week 17, would you change your "play to win all games" opinion??

 

Simply lose to get the #5 overall pick in the draft. Win get no draft compensation, just win over saints.