Losing by design - A BAD IDEA?

[Gumby]

FROM BOB GEORGE COLUMN: In all the games involving these six teams, the only team which figures to lose are the Patriots, and that would likely be by design, much like last year. The Patriots could very well rest Tom Brady the entire game, especially after that jarring hit he took from Jacksonville linebacker Clint Ingram on Sunday. Other Patriots could very well be rested, including Vince Wilfork, Rodney Harrison, Ben Watson and Ryan O'Callaghan. The Patriots could use the Tennessee game as their bye week, or as a "tuneup" game for Denver, who figures to be their Wild Card round playoff opponent.

Personally I think this whole idea of planning to lose by design idea is BS. I also thought so last year when they tanked against Miami so they could play JAX instead of Pitt.

I think it mentally puts the wrong image into your players mind. Instead of "IF WE GIVE 100% WE CAN BEAT ANYBODY" they go into the playoffs thinking that "WE ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE IF WE FACE SO AND SO".

Psychologically I think you are better off just to play straight up.


I don't know for sure if it made any sort of difference in the Denver game last year**, but I suspect it could have. I just think it is bad practice to go out and intentionally lose a game to try and orchastrate specific playoff seeding. Just play it out and beat who you have to beat.

(** My feelings about that game is that the Patriots were EXPECTING A BAD REFEREED GAME from the outset from their coaching staff. They acted from first couple of plays like they thought the referrees could be talked into flags and I think it actually ended up bouncing back against them. I don't know if they could have overcome 5 turnovers if the PI calls and the out of end zone had been called right; but the whole refereeing in all the playoffs last year was the worst I have seen in 30+ years of watching pro football - so we weren't the only ones screwed. )

 

[richpats]

I have a different take on 'losing by design' this season:

http://208.109.107.176/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=46855

In short, instead of 'tanking' to avoid a tough opponent we'd be 'tanking' to guarantee we face one.

Just think if we go full strength against the Titans, then we lose or Indy beats Miami, we still likely have to face Denver and it'll look like we were trying to avoid them.

 

[smg93]

I don't agree with tanking anything either. It goes against the principle of taking it one game at a time. And we know that that's a mantra in New England. I didn't agree with what happened last year when they played Miami. Unless Brady is hurt right now and needs rest, I don't want to put him in a frame of mind where he would be scared to play because of possible injury. He doesn't think like that anyway, so I don't think we should encourage thoughts like that in any way.

 

[DB15]

you play to win the game

 

[Fogbuster]

Yes, a *very* bad idea. Bad for the head.

I agree with Gumby on this:

Personally I think this whole idea of planning to lose by design idea is BS. I also thought so last year when they tanked against Miami so they could play JAX instead of Pitt.

I think it mentally puts the wrong image into your players mind. Instead of "IF WE GIVE 100% WE CAN BEAT ANYBODY" they go into the playoffs thinking that "WE ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE IF WE FACE SO AND SO".

Psychologically I think you are better off just to play straight up.


I don't know for sure if it made any sort of difference in the Denver game last year**, but I suspect it could have. I just think it is bad practice to go out and intentionally lose a game to try and orchastrate specific playoff seeding. Just play it out and beat who you have to beat.

(** My feelings about that game is that the Patriots were EXPECTING A BAD REFEREED GAME from the outset from their coaching staff. They acted from first couple of plays like they thought the referees could be talked into flags and I think it actually ended up bouncing back against them. I don't know if they could have overcome 5 turnovers if the PI calls and the out of end zone had been called right; but the whole refereeing in all the playoffs last year was the worst I have seen in 30+ years of watching pro football - so we weren't the only ones screwed. )

 

[mgteich]

The players that are playing should try their hardest to win the game. On the other hand, inactives should include Harrison, Wilfork, Seymour, Warren, Watson, Maroney,Bruschi, Vrabel, with Brady as the emergency QB.

 

[richpats]

The players that are playing should try their hardest to win the game. On the other hand, inactives should include Harrison, Wilfork, Seymour, Warren, Watson, Maroney,Bruschi, Vrabel, with Brady as the emergency QB.

I think that's the best way to put it- the goal is the same, though it will be with far less talent. Who knows, maybe they'll pull off an 'upset' of a very hot Titans squad - that would give them a lot of confidence going into January.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

This actually is harder to put a finger on than we might like. As a starting point, I'd use the standard of "what's best for the team." Obviously a win continues momentum, which is a good thing, but after reading Reiss' 'depth' article, what's best for the team could turn out to be the extra game reps some of the players get.

QB: There is already a fresh rumor this morning that had Brady staying near Gillette for treatment after the spearing incident. Is it better for the team to use him against the Titans, or is it better to give Cassel an entire game to shake off the dust and cobwebs as he assimilates the speed of the game? Third seed hardly seems worth beating Tommy up again, I think I'd let him play one series to keep his streak going, then turn the game over to Matt - and that's only if he isn't limited after his ice tank baths.

You can go through the entire roster, including the Practice Squad, and point to players who would really benefit from extra game reps and starters/key contributors who you would like to rest due to injury. If the team had been sleep walking through the past couple games, I'd say play it straight up, but I'm darned if I can see the sense of it, momentum or not, when key players like Brady and Seymour and Wilfork and Watson (wacky threads notwithstanding) are nursing injuries that won't be 100% for the Wildcard round. Arguably it's tanking the game, but looked at in another light, it's preseason two, one last chance to evaluate Hill and Mays and Spann and Jackson...I can't see faulting BB whichever course he chooses, it's not an easy decision.

 

[lutontown_fc]

Where did it become 'fact' that the Patriots rested players against Miami last year to avoid the perrenial postseason juggernaut that is the Pittsburgh Steelers?

I think the Jags posed the same type of questions that the Steelers would have, had we met - strong physical D, strong armed QB, good running game.....

The Steelers caught some huge breaks last year, I dont think BB would have been scared to play them at all.

The real question should be, is it worth risking the health of key players to try and select an opponent in the playoffs?

The way things are set, we could face the same team whether we win or lose against Tennessee - depending on other results.

Unless you think that the 3rd seed (probably the Colts) are going to the AFCCG then its not even worth the consideration to guarantee HFA over them at that stage.

As mgteich and B_O_R said - let the guys on the field play for the win, and possibly a place on the starting roster in the postseason - let the key guys rest up after maybe the midpoint of the 2nd Q.

NM

 

[Patriotic]

The players that are playing should try their hardest to win the game. On the other hand, inactives should include Harrison, Wilfork, Seymour, Warren, Watson, Maroney,Bruschi, Vrabel, with Brady as the emergency QB.

Agreed. The Pats would not be trying to lose by playing a few backups. These backups have even more incentive to play well. And by resting some others, the Pats are trying to win by design in January.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

Bad idea!

"Losing is a disease"

 

[richpats]

Bad idea!

"Losing is a disease"

So are injuries with this team. And injuries can sure translate into losing.

 

[PatsDeb]

Put me with the people who argue the Pats did not intentionally "tank" the Miami game last year. They did rest key players, but those who played (including Cassel, who did very well against a tough Miami D) tried hard to win the game, and came close. I think they'll do the same this year, especially if Brady is sore. What would be the argument of the fans if BB played Brady and he aggravated that big bad bruise he must have on his back/shoulder, and he couldn't go in the wildcard round? It's not worth the chance for what is probably a "meaningless" win. If it was for the bye, we would approach the game differently.

 

[edzo44]

Yes! Very bad idea!

Playing to lose is for losers.

Play to win, get a good lead and then rest your players.

Challenge the backups to hold the lead.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

They go for the win,but there's no point in shoving injured starters out there either. It's a matter of "we want to win" vs "a must-win" situation. I hope BB gives the wounded a week off because we'll need them at 100% in January,and if the rumor about Brady is true then I'd hope he's either benched or pulled asap.No slight on Matt,but I think we'd all rest easier with Tom at the post-season helm.
Bottom line,injury status (the real one lol) should rule this weekend,not the seeding,and fortunately last week afforded us this luxury. Now if we had no key injuries,I'd say we still go for the win,keep the mojo going,but mix the players up a bit,give the rookies a little time without revealing too much about any surprises that may be planned for January.
In general I agree with the original post-"tanking" a game in order to face an easier opponent just sends a bad,bad confidence message.
Let the inactives sit,keep Brady on a short leash,and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[richpats]

In general I agree with the original post-"tanking" a game in order to face an easier opponent just sends a bad,bad confidence message.

I don't know if everyone gets that by not going full strength, we're essentially guaranteeing ourselves a date with the Denver Broncos. Can any Pats fan with a straight face say that this is an 'easier' opponent for us?

I think it sends a message that we ARE confident in beating Denver IMO, and we need that going into a rematch.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I say treat it like a pre-season game. Rest injured players and old players. (Brown, Bruschi, etc. might regain some explosiveness with a week off.) Give Brady a quarter or a half to work on timing with guys like Thomas, Jackson and Gaffney and then get him the hell out of harm's way. Give Harrison a chance to play a quarter or two to get back into game shape, but otherwise, let Seymour, Hobbs, Watson and Wilfork have more time to recover. The Pats know how to win. If the second stringers lose to Tennesee, that won't affect the Denver game.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

I don't know if everyone gets that by not going full strength, we're essentially guaranteeing ourselves a date with the Denver Broncos. Can any Pats fan with a straight face say that this is an 'easier' opponent for us?

I think it sends a message that we ARE confident in beating Denver IMO, and we need that going into a rematch.

I was thinking more in a general sense;not necessarily specific to this year but point taken. Regardless, as far as this year goes,let the injuries dictate the roster this week and whatever happens,happens. Personally I wouldn't want to "design" anything. If we "design" avoiding the Broncos-bad message. If we "design" facing the Broncos, that could blow up in our faces. Whoever we end up facing,we will need 100% so imo let the true injury status dictate the plan. Meanwhile hope we get a good,comfy lead early on so we can start pulling and replacing and having some fun.

 

[PatsDeb]

I don't know if everyone gets that by not going full strength, we're essentially guaranteeing ourselves a date with the Denver Broncos. Can any Pats fan with a straight face say that this is an 'easier' opponent for us?

I think it sends a message that we ARE confident in beating Denver IMO, and we need that going into a rematch.

Good point. The other thing is if we beat Denver (and no, I am not trying to create bad karma) we are setting up a cross-country trip to San Diego, rather than a short one to Baltimore, so we are not really helping ourselves by "tanking" the game.

 

[richpats]

Good point. The other thing is if we beat Denver (and no, I am not trying to create bad karma) we are setting up a cross-country trip to San Diego, rather than a short one to Baltimore, so we are not really helping ourselves by "tanking" the game.

I think both trips are inevitable, but I'd prefer hitting SD first because they are not a playoff-seasoned squad and Rivers (who is looking very un-Pro Bowl-like lately) would be making his first playoff start. Plus they will have some rust coming off the bye. If they had a 'confidence-building win' in the divisional round then going into SD would be a VERY tough assignment.