Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

FMIA: Tanking shouldn’t be a dirty word


NAS
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, stbugs said:

Due to tanking lol. They have been building up some good assets from trades like Jamal Adams and cough, cough, Sam Darnold. If Wilson improves they’ll have a really good team. Not sure he can but they’ve got a good team around him.

The Jets were not tanking, they won a late season game which knocked them down to the second pick. Give me a fuging break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just lol at anyone trying to justify winning yesterday being a good thing 

All they’re doing by winning a few more meaningless games is positioning themselves to have to trade a ton of trade picks to move up in the draft or sign/trade another Darnold or Baker

If we don’t land our guy in the draft we’ll do this exact same thing next season. It just pushes back our ideal competitive timeline by another year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Move the Panthers to Raleigh said:

No, 2003 is still my favorite year as a Panther fan, and I was a Jake fan for awhile too. But Jake could not give us consistent play and wasn’t  a true franchise QB. Why try to go that route again if it failed in the end? We can’t just hope for a magical season like that to happen again, and I don’t want just a magical season. I want a 10-15 year window with a guy that THIS TEAM drafted, developed, and built talent around. That is what makes a great team like the Chiefs, Bills, Patriots, and Steelers of recent history.

Jake was a gunslinger and a big time competitor.  He was pretty consistent and 2004 with all those injuries really screwed up a chance for back to back winning seasons. 

I get it, I would love to have a 10-15 year QB but tanking doesn't guarantee it.  What if we draft #1 and he's a bust.  Then we tank again for the #1?  It's a crapshoot.  Maybe we should tank the next 5 years and draft Manning's nephew. 

You do your best every year and do your homework and we'll eventually have that QB.  I'm too lazy to go back and look but Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, Rodgers, Brady, Brees and others were not the #1 pick.  The GM that does his homework will find that QB. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

Just lol at anyone trying to justify winning yesterday being a good thing 

All they’re doing by winning a few more meaningless games is positioning themselves to have to trade a ton of trade picks to move up in the draft or sign/trade another Darnold or Baker

If we don’t land our guy in the draft we’ll do this exact same thing next season. It just pushes back our ideal competitive timeline by another year 

You're invited to the locker room to tell the players you've decided it's important for them to lose so we can draft a possible savior in the 2023 draft.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

Just lol at anyone trying to justify winning yesterday being a good thing 

All they’re doing by winning a few more meaningless games is positioning themselves to have to trade a ton of trade picks to move up in the draft or sign/trade another Darnold or Baker

If we don’t land our guy in the draft we’ll do this exact same thing next season. It just pushes back our ideal competitive timeline by another year 

Its the nfl, teams like us are going to win a few games.  Thats just the nature of this league.  My frustration with these (mostly) aliases is that they dont acknowledge wtf are we going to do next year at qb if we dont draft someone?  You rolling out pj again?  fug that. You signing some jag off the street?  You trading for someone?   At some point we have to bite the bullet and draft a guy in the first.  Its inevitable.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

You're invited to the locker room to tell the players you've decided it's important for them to lose so we can draft a possible savior in the 2023 draft.  

 

No one expects players to tank, they’re playing for jobs. That’s not how it works. Jesus Christ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

No but being shitty is

If you are a shitty team than you will get what you deserve. No one on that team from the front office to the last man on the PS is going to stop trying to get better.  If we lose, then we lose but they are going to keep trying to win.  As fans, we have to take what they give us. 

What gets me is every one of the QBs in this draft are not surefire Franchise QBs.  There isn't a Peyton Manning scream to be the #1 pick.  There will most likely be a QB we would consider if we win a couple of games and miss the #1 pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Jake was a gunslinger and a big time competitor.  He was pretty consistent and 2004 with all those injuries really screwed up a chance for back to back winning seasons. 

I get it, I would love to have a 10-15 year QB but tanking doesn't guarantee it.  What if we draft #1 and he's a bust.  Then we tank again for the #1?  It's a crapshoot.  Maybe we should tank the next 5 years and draft Manning's nephew. 

You do your best every year and do your homework and we'll eventually have that QB.  I'm too lazy to go back and look but Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, Rodgers, Brady, Brees and others were not the #1 pick.  The GM that does his homework will find that QB. 

To be clear, I’m not advocating to tank year after year, but with the way things have developed this year, the time is now. If it ultimately doesn’t work, I will not be on here suggesting we tank until it works

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...