How to lose to the Jets in week 17

[ViperGTS]

You argue as if losing is the cool thing to do and you have to have a reason not to. A football team has a culture. Professionsl athletes are playing for their career every time they take the field. A football player who gives less than 100% risks career threatening injury. No player will accept losing on purpose because competitive athletes are not built that way. When you introduce losing into a team culture and consider it acceptable or in your case preferred you are done.
This is why there are exactly zero cases of it happening.
That is why you don’t say no I played competitive teams sports because I know you didn’t because you would understand these things.

Far, far more teams have progressed middle of the pack to the top than from cheating to lose so they can draft a couple spots higher. And see I don’t whine about the team, i leave that to the losers.
[/QUOTE]

Sigh, you keep digging your hole deeper. Heres how you do it genius. Trade players who have value, IR those who get hurt and then its off to the races. You may not lose as much as you want to, but the NFL is a fine line between winning and losing. I doubt many pro players would care if if it mean they had a better chance of winning in the future. Think anyone on the Pats D would loath having a Mack, Miller, Bosa type guy on the line? Yeah I doubt it.

I played plenty of sports. Again, you fail to comprehend that there is ZERO benefit to losing in every non pro league. You seem to be unable to understand such an easy concept.

Until you do, there is nothing more to be said.

 

[Ring 6]

Let's just say he definitely didn't mind losing that one

Win or loss was irrelevant because of seeding. He certainly didn’t lose on purpose though. There was no reason to dishonor the sport, himself, his players, and sports in general.

 

[Ring 6]

You argue as if losing is the cool thing to do and you have to have a reason not to. A football team has a culture. Professionsl athletes are playing for their career every time they take the field. A football player who gives less than 100% risks career threatening injury. No player will accept losing on purpose because competitive athletes are not built that way. When you introduce losing into a team culture and consider it acceptable or in your case preferred you are done.
This is why there are exactly zero cases of it happening.
That is why you don’t say no I played competitive teams sports because I know you didn’t because you would understand these things.

Far, far more teams have progressed middle of the pack to the top than from cheating to lose so they can draft a couple spots higher. And see I don’t whine about the team, i leave that to the losers.

Sigh, you keep digging your hole deeper. Heres how you do it genius. Trade players who have value, IR those who get hurt and then its off to the races. You may not lose as much as you want to, but the NFL is a fine line between winning and losing. I doubt many pro players would

I played plenty of sports. Again, you fail to comprehend that there is ZERO benefit to losing in every non pro league. You seem to be unable to understand such an easy concept.

Until you do, there is nothing more to be said.

You fail to recognize that that has nothing to do with it.
I am talking about how competitors compete, and how an organization builds, and maintains a winning culture.
Your argument is they must cheat to lose because at other levels there is no benefit.

Why would you trade players who have value? You want to get rid of good players so you can lose and pick a few spots higher so you have a better chance to get good players. Yeah that makes a hell of a lot of sense.
And you haven’t been talking about rebuilding you’ve talking about intentionally losing.
And again there is no way you played competitive organized team sports if you would want the team you are on to lose on purpose. A real competitive athlete would vomit at the suggestion.

 

[ViperGTS]

You fail to recognize that that has nothing to do with it.
I am talking about how competitors compete, and how an organization builds, and maintains a winning culture.
Your argument is they must cheat to lose because at other levels there is no benefit.

Why would you trade players who have value? You want to get rid of good players so you can lose and pick a few spots higher so you have a better chance to get good players. Yeah that makes a hell of a lot of sense.
And you haven’t been talking about rebuilding you’ve talking about intentionally losing.
And again there is no way you played competitive organized team sports if you would want the team you are on to lose on purpose. A real competitive athlete would vomit at the suggestion.

I'm sure every single player on the '12 Colts roster was vomiting when they got the number 1 pick in the draft. Absolutely vomit everywhere.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sure every single player on the '12 Colts roster was vomiting when they got the number 1 pick in the draft. Absolutely vomit everywhere.

Yes, they were. And what happened to the culture of that team? EVERYONE got fired.
I can’t believe you are honestly telling me that you think professional athletes were happy to get their ass kicked because yay we get to pick first in the draft.

 

[aluminum seats]

Win or loss was irrelevant because of seeding. He certainly didn’t lose on purpose though. There was no reason to dishonor the sport, himself, his players, and sports in general.

No, I think if memory serves the loss gave them Jacksonville which was a better team to play

 

[scott99]

I think he pulls a Manning and says I won’t go to the Jets; please trade the pick to New England. I would do that or stay at Clemson. Oh, no. No way do I elect to go to a team owned by the Johnsons. No, no, no, no, NO!

Nobody has done that since Manning. I don’t think Lawrence is that kind of person. I think he’d just be thrilled to be drafted 1st overall. Plus, the Jaguars are even worse than the Jets. I live in NYC, and unfortunately I see a bunch of Jet’s games, and they could easily have 5 wins. There were several games where they had the lead, and because of bad coaching, lost those games. And several others where they were in the game, and the other team pulled away.

Once Gase stopped calling the offensive plays, the Jets offense improved. But like I said, I’ve watched Jet’s games and I’ve watched Jags games, the Jets are a better team, despite the record (Jets had the toughest schedule in football).

 

[ViperGTS]

Yes, they were. And what happened to the culture of that team? EVERYONE got fired.
I can’t believe you are honestly telling me that you think professional athletes were happy to get their ass kicked because yay we get to pick first in the draft.

Did they have 20 years of precedent? 6 SB trophies, 9 appearances? No. The Pats had no offseason. No ability to train their way. Lost the GOAT QB. Tons of opt outs. Plenty of ability to play the young guys and see where that gets you. My guess, with Stidham team would have gone 2-14. Thats how you do it.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I think if memory serves the loss gave them Jacksonville which was a better team to play

There is no better team to play. Imagine a coach coming off 3 championships in 4 years telling him team that they need to lose because he’s afraid of the lower seed.

 

[Ring 6]

Did they have 20 years of precedent? 6 SB trophies, 9 appearances? No. The Pats had no offseason. No ability to train their way. Lost the GOAT QB. Tons of opt outs. Plenty of ability to play the young guys and see where that gets you. My guess, with Stidham team would have gone 2-14. Thats how you do it.

In fact they did have a winning culture. No that’s certainly not how you do it. That’s how you destroy an organization.

 

[aluminum seats]

There is no better team to play.

Sure there is

 

[sb1]

I'm sure every single player on the '12 Colts roster was vomiting when they got the number 1 pick in the draft. Absolutely vomit everywhere.

A lot of them might have done that but only because they lost their jobs not for any other reason. Team president, Gm, coaching staff, half the roster- all gone.

If this team went 2-14 Bill was gone too. I really believe it.

 

[Doctor DDS]

I just saw your other response. I despise losing however as people who are smart of know that in the NFL, purgatory, isn't where you want to live. Like, say 8-8 or 7-9, which is precisely where the Patriots are at right now. You may like to root for treadmill teams, I don't. You'll be whining in a few years when the only team without a young stud QB is the Pats, unless they get extremely lucky.

You really seem to enjoy the "treadmill team comment" as you use it all the time. It may apply in the NBA but it certainly does not in the NFL. The top team in the NFL right now is KC and they spent multiple years getting into the playoffs with no real shot to win it. They were losing out on that coveted top pick to take the next step yet they somehow did it anyway. The Titans were also a "treadmill" team who did not turn it around after an earlier tank year when they picked up the can't miss Mariotta but turned it around with a reclamation project QB and a 2nd round RB.

I assume you must have wanted the Pats to tank in 2001 after they started 0-2 especially after they lost their starting QB. Why take a chance on winning some games and becoming a treadmill team when you could be in line to snag a can't miss David Carr with the first pick and set your team up for the next 10 years. And if for some reason you did accidently win too many games for the top pick you could still grab Joey Harrington at #3 so the future was secure.

This Pats team went in to the year with seemingly a legitimate shot at winning the division or make a WC spot. Hope that Cam rebounds and they are able to gut out a number of wins with a top running game and stingy defense. After handling a good Miami team in week 1, losing by 1 yard to Seattle then convincingly beating a solid Raiders team a playoff spot seemed completely feasible. Unfortunately their play slipped and it was ultimately not to be but your brilliant plan would have been "why take the risk". The team needs to purposely lose games starting from game 1. Can't chance being successful. Since they have a chance at grabbing a QB with the #1 pick actually competing, winning games and playing with integrity is a serious detriment to the long term success of the team.

Your evidence is apparently a Colts team that "sucked for Luck" and went on the dominate the NFL for a decade or organizations like the Jets or Jags who may have had a down year or 2 but once they grabbed Sanchez or Bortles they would be all set for years. (Jags had a top 10 pick 10 straight years by the way including a 5 year stretch when they were all top 5.) Bottom line is more "treadmill" teams turn it around than crap teams.

 

[ViperGTS]

You really seem to enjoy the "treadmill team comment" as you use it all the time. It may apply in the NBA but it certainly does not in the NFL. The top team in the NFL right now is KC and they spent multiple years getting into the playoffs with no real shot to win it. They were losing out on that coveted top pick to take the next step yet they somehow did it anyway. The Titans were also a "treadmill" team who did not turn it around after an earlier tank year when they picked up the can't miss Mariotta but turned it around with a reclamation project QB and a 2nd round RB.

I assume you must have wanted the Pats to tank in 2001 after they started 0-2 especially after they lost their starting QB. Why take a chance on winning some games and becoming a treadmill team when you could be in line to snag a can't miss David Carr with the first pick and set your team up for the next 10 years. And if for some reason you did accidently win too many games for the top pick you could still grab Joey Harrington at #3 so the future was secure.

This Pats team went in to the year with seemingly a legitimate shot at winning the division or make a WC spot. Hope that Cam rebounds and they are able to gut out a number of wins with a top running game and stingy defense. After handling a good Miami team in week 1, losing by 1 yard to Seattle then convincingly beating a solid Raiders team a playoff spot seemed completely feasible. Unfortunately their play slipped and it was ultimately not to be but your brilliant plan would have been "why take the risk". The team needs to purposely lose games starting from game 1. Can't chance being successful. Since they have a chance at grabbing a QB with the #1 pick actually competing, winning games and playing with integrity is a serious detriment to the long term success of the team.

Your evidence is apparently a Colts team that "sucked for Luck" and went on the dominate the NFL for a decade or organizations like the Jets or Jags who may have had a down year or 2 but once they grabbed Sanchez or Bortles they would be all set for years. (Jags had a top 10 pick 10 straight years by the way including a 5 year stretch when they were all top 5.) Bottom line is more "treadmill" teams turn it around than crap teams.

Sure you can straw man it all you want. Again, when you lose the GOAT, in a year that people really don't care about football because of CoVid, league high opt outs, and the best QB in a generation coming out, yeah you do what's needed to get your Steve Young. Instead, they are in the treadmill status, which no matter how much of a novel you write, that is where they are. You pointed out a a select few circumstance to fit your argument. Problem is, those teams didn't have the ability to absorb an abysmal season or have the coaching staff to grow a stud QB. Or a stud DL etc. Must have missed how good a Mack, Bosa or Moss etc would look on this team. Those 6 wins so far have only hurt that possibility.

Look at the Jets, they just massively screwed themselves by winning a game. Their whole future went from secure or at least a good chance to be, to oh no all over again. Now they are talking about offensive linemen meanwhile in Jax they are dancing in the streets. Think about that for a second.

 

[ViperGTS]

A lot of them might have done that but only because they lost their jobs not for any other reason. Team president, Gm, coaching staff, half the roster- all gone.

If this team went 2-14 Bill was gone too. I really believe it.

Highly doubtful. In a normal year maybe but Covid plus TB leaving, no off season program etc you get a massive pass, especially with the QB crop thats out there.

 

[Doctor DDS]

Sure you can straw man it all you want. Again, when you lose the GOAT, in a year that people really don't care about football because of CoVid, league high opt outs, and the best QB in a generation coming out, yeah you do what's needed to get your Steve Young. Instead, they are in the treadmill status, which no matter how much of a novel you write, that is where they are. You pointed out a a select few circumstance to fit your argument. Problem is, those teams didn't have the ability to absorb an abysmal season or have the coaching staff to grow a stud QB. Or a stud DL etc. Must have missed how good a Mack, Bosa or Moss etc would look on this team. Those 6 wins so far have only hurt that possibility.

Look at the Jets, they just massively screwed themselves by winning a game. Their whole future went from secure or at least a good chance to be, to oh no all over again. Now they are talking about offensive linemen meanwhile in Jax they are dancing in the streets. Think about that for a second.

Straw man? You're the one comparing the Jets situation to the Patriots. The Jets were 0-13 all on their own and them being better off losing at that point in the season is not at all comparable to the Patriots. How was this year different from 2001 after week 2? Your proposal is to start losing game one w/o having any idea what you even have as a team just for the chance you get a top pick even though every year we see a number of the top 10 picks flop. Plus it's unethical and without any evidence of success but I know it will not stop you from repeating it over and over again.

 

[stinkypete]

There is no guarantee that Lawrence won't be the next Ryan Leaf, or that he won't shred his knee in his 10th game like Borrow did, or that we won't pull an Elway/Eli. No self-respecting professional tries to lose. Every coach is trying to win every game. The Jets were 0 - 13 because they are that bad. Belichick will try to win in week 17. He might try to win with Stidham (or he might with Newton) but he will be trying nonetheless.

 

[Ring 6]

There is no guarantee that Lawrence won't be the next Ryan Leaf, or that he won't shred his knee in his 10th game like Borrow did, or that we won't pull an Elway/Eli. No self-respecting professional tries to lose. Every coach is trying to win every game. The Jets were 0 - 13 because they are that bad. Belichick will try to win in week 17. He might try to win with Stidham (or he might with Newton) but he will be trying nonetheless.

Glorifying losing is how losers feel better about themselves.
They call failure “smart” and strategic. This way they can see value in failure to give their life some hope.

 

[Ring 6]

Normally I would agree but if there’s one franchise he would do it to to spite them, it’s the Jets. He tweaked their noses with the delay of game last year. No question he would do it again to them if he could.

That’s like saying you would find it morally reprehensible to cheat on your wife but you would do it with a guy you don’t likes wife to hurt him.
There are no gray areas with character.

 

[sb1]

Highly doubtful. In a normal year maybe but Covid plus TB leaving, no off season program etc you get a massive pass, especially with the QB crop thats out there.

6-10 or 7-9 with these circumstances will get a mulligan. Next year too probably.

2-14 would be different. That gets coaches fired - as they should be.