WHy would a team want to win if your out of the playoffs?

[Nza]

To answer the thread title's question - because draft order is overrated. To actually go out and lose you'll need more than just yourself on board whether your the coach or whoever, and it's just not worth instilling the culture of losing being acceptable in a team for draft order. So you move up a few picks - you could end up taking the same player you would have taken in another spot anyway. Or you could pick a player everyone loves but busts out completely while the team 3 picks behind that you let win in your meaningless week 17 game gets the real star because you took the bust off the board. The draft is a random process when you break it down, there's no cheating it, so you may as well win whenever and however you can.

[Stu]

I'm sure this has been mentioned already but in today's NFL coaches and players change teams so often that they might not benefit from a higher draft pick. This is their job. Do you really expect them to put their job and career on the line to help an organization they might not even be with the following season?

[DougSupreme]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nza

To answer the thread title's question - because draft order is overrated. To actually go out and lose you'll need more than just yourself on board whether your the coach or whoever, and it's just not worth instilling the culture of losing being acceptable in a team for draft order. So you move up a few picks - you could end up taking the same player you would have taken in another spot anyway. Or you could pick a player everyone loves but busts out completely while the team 3 picks behind that you let win in your meaningless week 17 game gets the real star because you took the bust off the board. The draft is a random process when you break it down, there's no cheating it, so you may as well win whenever and however you can.

This may be the best post I've read supporting the "win regardless of draft position".......position

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by DougSupreme

It was me asking. Why shouldn't coaches field the best team every game? Preseason, late season, whatever. if the Colts can "rest" Manning and Harrison for the last two games of the season because they have locked up homefield, why shouldn't the Bears "rest" their solid starters to keep them healthy for the following season? I understand playing Orton, McGowan, or D. Manning to see what you have in them or to get them some experience.

I thought that's exactly what I explained. The goal of any season is to win the championship. If Manning or Harrison were hurt it drastically changes the dynamic of the team, pretty much ending any chance of them winning the championship, so doing this makes sense. The likelihood of a player getting hurt in a game that would carry over into the next season is MUCH slimmer. The preseason is similar to the Colts situation b/c all teams still have a chance at getting to the championship at that time. That's why guys like Portis complain so much about preseason games but then you can see how their production could be better with more time there (even LT this year).

Quote: Originally Posted by DougSupreme

My point isn't that you should intentionally lose a game, but why should winning teams be allowed to play less than their best squad when a poor team could benefit just as much by increasing their draft position. I suppose you could make it a non-issue by having the 1st round position for the first 10-12 teams determined by a lottery similar to the NBA. then it wouldn't matter so much whether you had the worst record in the league or the 5th worst, you would still have a chance at the top pick. And at no time did I imply that the players on the field should give any less than their best effort.

You didn't imply they should give less than their best effort? Isn't the best effort of anyone on the field and coaching the game all an attempt to win the game? With that, you just said "... a poor team could benefit just as much by increasing their draft position." which would imply that since they can benefit from losing the game, that's what they should do.

This thread isn't about whether or not younger players should get a look or aging vets should get more time off if the team is out of the playoffs... teams already do that. This thread is about teams doing things to intentionally NOT win games to improve their draft position. The ONLY way that can happen is for players and/or coaches to give less than their best effort.

[ThreeKing]

Quote: Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh

I'm w/you, illidan, on some levels. I wouldn't throw the game on purpose. But I would probably take advantage of the opportunity to get a better look @ all my personel in game conditions so as to get a better handle on what I need for next season. If you get my drift.

Exactly what I would do.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by camulos

I'm sure this has been mentioned already but in today's NFL coaches and players change teams so often that they might not benefit from a higher draft pick. This is their job. Do you really expect them to put their job and career on the line to help an organization they might not even be with the following season?

Nope. Which is where management needs to step in. Either assure the coach he will be back the next season, or force him to play who the owners want to play.

[dkgojackets]

Quote: Originally Posted by J0nnD0ugh

Beason is a fantastic 2nd choice. No complaints about Beason. Except that he's not as good as Willis. Many players have talent. Few of them have IT. Those 2 meaningless wins for the Panthers last year made the difference.

Meaningless wins? They could have still made the playoffs up until the last week up of the season when the Giants won. And thats with four starting lineman injured.

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by DougSupreme

My point isn't that you should intentionally lose a game, but why should winning teams be allowed to play less than their best squad when a poor team could benefit just as much by increasing their draft position. I suppose you could make it a non-issue by having the 1st round position for the first 10-12 teams determined by a lottery similar to the NBA. then it wouldn't matter so much whether you had the worst record in the league or the 5th worst, you would still have a chance at the top pick. And at no time did I imply that the players on the field should give any less than their best effort.

No, you didn't. The tc did. And if you are going to ask your players to go all out, then your coaches better do so as well. And as far as a lottery is concerned, it is in the NBA because teams began tanking. That isn't an issue in the NFL. No matter how many people in this thread think it's a good plan to bench all your starters, NFL teams won't do this. Why? Because the players would leave. Do you think that Ray Lewis would stay with the Ravens if he thought the coachiong staff wasn't trying to win. Trying to give younger players a chance to gain experience is one thing, trying to get better draft position is completely different. It is a slap in the face of your players.

Quote: Originally Posted by DougSupreme

Don't misunderstand me. Momentum is not a non-factor within a season. I just don't believe that it has that much effect from season to season

Maybe momentum doesn't. But winning late does two things. First, it gives you confidence and the knowledge that you can do it. You cannot tell me that believing that you will rather than believing that you might win doesn't make a huge difference. These teams that go on a run at the end of the year have confidence going into the next year that they are good enough to compete with any team, and that motivates them to work harder all offseason. Teams that go on stretches of losing don't have this, and normally don't have as productive of offseasons.

Secondly, it teaches you how to win. The experience of winning teaches you what you have to in preparation, on gameday, and on that field to become a winner. It isn't something that you can be told. You have to discover this for yourself. You can't do that by losing. It is rare (but not unheard of) of a team to come completely out of nowhere. Your great rookie player normally won't help for two or three years, but a winning streak at the end of the year, and the confidence that goes with it, has immediete success at a much higher rate than a rookie defensive end.

And look at the teams that drafted high last year. How did they do? Of the teams with the top 14 picks in the draft, only two made the playoffs (tampa bay and washington).