Week 17 of last season...

[LinvilleGorge]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

If you're a guy like Ron Rivera, you never throw a game.

If you're a slimy weasel like Sean Peyton, I'm not so sure.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me whether the Saints deliberately tanked that game I'd probably say no; primarily because of Bridgewater but also because I'm skeptical of tanking scenarios in general.

But if, with that same gun to my head, you asked me whether I believe Sean Payton was capable of doing something sleazy like deliberately losing a game to hurt a rival's draft status, to that you'd hear me say an emphatic "hell yes"

Yeah, pretty much this. I can't say whether the Saints intentionally threw that game, but to anyone watching it was blatantly obvious they were protecting themselves for the playoffs both in terms of who they were playing, how they were playing them, and the fact that they were as bland and vanilla has possible with their schemes. Which honestly is completely understandable given the fact that they had home field advantage already locked up throughout the playoffs.

[MasterAwesome]

2 hours ago, MHS831 said:

First of all,  I am not "dude."  How old are you? 

Next time you make a personal attack because you think you are smarter  than someone else, dude, get this---you do not know either. If you think you need to mock someone to disagree with them--then you are probably some twat shooting up cyber courage to feed those self-esteem issues.  Now you should probably finish your Waffle House application and keep those fingers crossed!  Paper hats are so much cooler, right, Dude?  AH

 

You ask me how old I am while going on a strawman tirade because I called you “dude” and asked if you were wearing a tinfoil hat? And I have self-esteem issues? A little defensive there, bro (is “bro” better?).

Good job defending all the holes I put in your argument. Way to now acknowledge that you don’t know anything, while your original post was presented in the most ignorantly matter-of-fact way possible.

Why are you insulting Waffle House employees when I am quite certain they are also smarter than you?

[ChibCU]

2 hours ago, t96 said:

Plenty of sports teams have had a ton of talent over the years and not won a thing. And there have been teams with little talent win it all.

Of course... but you aren't arguing that, with all else equal, a team with a talent deficiency would be favored to beat a team with greater talent?

Please don't argue that scenario.

[t96]

23 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

I don't think the Saints tanked the game.  The theory they wanted to hurt our draft position is great, with one minor exception: our winning alone would not ensure anything.  The "screw their draft position" theory is too dependent on what too many other teams did, all of which were beyond the Saints' control (or ours).

I do think they went into the game not caring if they won or lost.  They had nothing to gain or lose in the standings/playoff seedings, so they made job one having as many healthy players after the game as they did before it.  If you are the Saints, your chances of getting somebody hurt against a division are not trivial.  Not because the division rivals are such vicious, evil people, but because you tend to bring that out in others.

As others have said, for them it was essentially a pre-season game played in week 17.

They used that game as a trial for Bridgewater. They played their starting OL, Thomas and Ingram the entire game around him. Our defense without Luke shut them down. Obviously the scheming on both sides was very vanilla but it was still a win we earned against quality opposition, not just some joke game. 

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Did you respond to this thread?  Why?  If you are a forward thinking individual, then move on, you visionary you.  Instead, you jumped on this thread to attack others for not thinking as progressively as you do. You do not have to be a dick, it is a choice. Before you analyze others, check that mirror. 

This wasn't an attack. I don't call you names or say anything about you personally. I simply pointed out where your logic was faulty and your points unrealistic. The fact you keep bringing them up months later just undercuts your credibility. Given some of your posts in this thread alone you surely aren't taking your own advice about not being a dick. Physician heal thyself.

[Happy Panther]

Just for fun I pasted in the #9 and #16 picks for the last 20 years. #9 is first and #16 is second. I did 2015 to 1999 because the last few years are green and nothing stands out and the same is true before 1999.

#9 clearly wins 2012 with our own future HOFer LUUUKE. Same with 2000 where #9 picked up Brian Urlacher. #9 also picks up 2010, 2009, 2005 and 2002.

#16 takes 2008, 2004, and 1999.

If you change the contest to #10 vs #16, #16 actually wins 4-2 in talent comparison (in my rough estimate) with the rest relative ties.

While if you then go #1 vs #10, #1 gets it 7-1 as you would expect. Franchise changers are in the first couple of picks more consistently. Shocking.

I will leave it to you guys to decide if it would have been worth it to tank

 

† means pro bowl

2015

New York Giants               Ereck Flowers

Houston Texans               Kevin Johnson

2014

Minnesota Vikings           Anthony Barr †

Dallas Cowboys                Zack Martin †

2013

New York Jets    Dee Milliner

Buffalo Bills         EJ Manuel

2012

Carolina Panthers            Luke Kuechly †

New York Jets    Quinton Coples

2011

Dallas Cowboys Tyron Smith †

Washington Redskins     Ryan Kerrigan †

2010

Buffalo Bills         C. J. Spiller †

Tennessee Titans             Derrick Morgan

2009

Green Bay Packers           B. J. Raji †

San Diego Chargers         Larry English

2008

Cincinnati Bengals           Keith Rivers

Arizona Cardinals             Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie †

2007

Miami Dolphins Ted Ginn Jr.

Green Bay Packers           Justin Harrell

2006

Detroit Lions      Ernie Sims

Miami Dolphins Jason Allen

2005

Washington Redskins     Carlos Rogers †

Houston Texans                Travis Johnson

2004

Jacksonville Jaguars         Reggie Williams

Philadelphia Eagles          Shawn Andrews †

2003

Minnesota Vikings           Kevin Williams †

Pittsburgh Steelers          Troy Polamalu †

2002

Jacksonville Jaguars         John Henderson †

Cleveland Browns            William Green

2001

Seattle Seahawks             Koren Robinson †

New York Jets    Santana Moss †

2000

Chicago Bears    Brian Urlacher double-dagger†

San Francisco 49ers         Julian Peterson †

1999

Detroit Lions      Chris Claiborne

Tennessee Titans             Jevon Kearse †

[LinvilleGorge]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Scot]

13 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But...your post is blank 

[MasterAwesome]

18 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who are you having this imaginary debate with regarding whether the #9 or #16 pick is inherently more valuable? He researched whether the higher-valued draft pick (specifically the #9 pick vs. #16 pick) ultimately yielded a better player or not...you know, something useful and pertaining to our situation. We all very much appreciate your insightful contribution that “9 bettur den 16”...gold star for our little math scholar!

[Waldo]

3 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Did you respond to this thread?  Why?  If you are a forward thinking individual, then move on, you visionary you.  Instead, you jumped on this thread to attack others for not thinking as progressively as you do. You do not have to be a dick, it is a choice. Before you analyze others, check that mirror. 

He is a complete contradiction. At first I thought it was worth debating because his flawed logic seems well put together but the farther down the rabbit hole you get the more you realize that he is willfully just using others to justify his rightness and everyone else's wrongness. It's basically just a polite troll persona. Use facts long enough and it will come full circle and eventually it will come down to you just being wrong and him right even when he has completely failed to make the case he thinks he has. Polite troll. Just pass over that bridge unless your looking for a human riddle to play with.

 

[Toomers]

4 minutes ago, Waldo said:

He is a complete contradiction. At first I thought it was worth debating because his flawed logic seems well put together but the farther down the rabbit hole you get the more you realize that he is willfully just using others to justify his rightness and everyone else's wrongness. It's basically just a polite troll persona. Use facts long enough and it will come full circle and eventually it will come down to you just being wrong and him right even when he has completely failed to make the case he thinks he has. Polite troll. Just pass over that bridge unless your looking for a human riddle to play with.

 

When site beer isn’t enough. 

[Happy Panther]

19 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Who are you having this imaginary debate with regarding whether the #9 or #16 pick is inherently more valuable? He researched whether the higher-valued draft pick (specifically the #9 pick vs. #16 pick) ultimately yielded a better player or not...you know, something useful and pertaining to our situation. We all very much appreciate your insightful contribution that “9 bettur den 16”...gold star for our little math scholar!

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.

 

[Icege]

1 hour ago, Happy Panther said:

Just for fun I pasted in the #9 and #16 picks for the last 20 years. #9 is first and #16 is second. I did 2015 to 1999 because the last few years are green and nothing stands out and the same is true before 1999.n

I already tried

People still act like #9 is the equivalent of the #1 pick while #16 is #256

[Happy Panther]

1 minute ago, Icege said:

I already tried

People still act like #9 is the equivalent of the #1 pick while #16 is #256

Damn well played. I could have just pied that.