The Jets can't even lose right

[sec.101row23]

Originally Posted by PMarsico9

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8...the-usc-d-line

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...son/index.html

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...n-Clowney.html

I have watched Clowney since his Jr. year in high school, Clemson was on his short list of schools he was considering. The kid is talented, no doubt. The notion to tank two seasons so that you could draft a DE is comical. The kid has another year to play in college. Lots can happen.

[Vin]

Why are Jets fans so obsessed with getting a guy with the Last name "Clowney"?

I mean....Isn't this franchise enough of a "Circus Act" already?

No need to REMIND everyone....

[EM31]

Originally Posted by CanadaSteve

You play to win....period. End of story.

What makes you think the pick we will get at 4-12 (cough Gholston cough) will work out any better than we'll get at around 15-20 (cough Coples cough).

You play to win, or don't play at all.

The Indianapolis Colts have pretty much debunked this ridiculous myth for all time.... Period. End of story. End of Book. End of Library and time capsuled forever.

We got Gholston (cough cough) because we stupidly won game 16 for no damned good reason when the #3 overall would have been ours with a loss in game 16.

Can teams make bad picks with very high draft picks? Yes they can. Can teams find diamonds lower in the draft? Yes they can. But since nobody really knows for sure these players are graded along an asymptote and the chances of finding an all pro impact player in round-7 are vanishingly small. The drop from #1 to even #10 overall is massive in the mythical average draft class year.

The arguments against this approach were far more valid when the old CBA made top-6 picks almost into a salary cap liability. That is not true now.

If we are going to be noncompetitive anyway then I would much rather we get the higher draft pick IN EVERY ROUND. If you want to blindly repeat the same mantra then go ahead and repeat it but nobody is buying what you are selling any more. We tried it your way.

[PMarsico9]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

I have watched Clowney since his Jr. year in high school, Clemson was on his short list of schools he was considering. The kid is talented, no doubt. The notion to tank two seasons so that you could draft a DE is comical. The kid has another year to play in college. Lots can happen.

Whatever you think, man.

A large point I'm trying to make is overarching, though:

The Colts traded away their franchise (Faulk) to get Manning after being pretty awful for years. Then they sucked for a year to the degree that they got Luck.

There's no foresight in just meandering along here. Long-term success.

Solid defense, solid QB play that elevates other players= NY Giants who are the model for how to build a football team these days.

Stack up D-line talent, get a great QB, win the games that count.

I mean would you have any basis for discrediting that a 10-6 or 9-7 Giants team coming off the Wildcard could win the Super Bowl?

[PMarsico9]

Originally Posted by EM31

The Indianapolis Colts have pretty much debunked this ridiculous myth for all time.... Period. End of story. End of Book. End of Library and time capsuled forever.

We got Gholston (cough cough) because we stupidly won game 16 for no damned good reason when the #3 overall would have been ours with a loss in game 16.

Can teams make bad picks with very high draft picks? Yes they can. Can teams find diamonds lower in the draft? Yes they can. But since nobody really knows for sure these players are graded along an asymptote and the chances of finding an all pro impact player in round-7 are vanishingly small. The drop from #1 to even #10 overall is massive in the mythical average draft class year.

The arguments against this approach were far more valid when the old CBA made top-6 picks almost into a salary cap liability. That is not true now.

If we are going to be noncompetitive anyway then I would much rather we get the higher draft pick IN EVERY ROUND. If you want to blindly repeat the same mantra then go ahead and repeat it but nobody is buying what you are selling any more. We tried it your way.

I agree. And owners, even idiots like Irsay, willing to be absolutely terrible to at least have the proper draft slot are miles ahead of guys going by Herm's ole' "You play to win the game."

No, you don't. You only play to win the game when you actually have a roster that is legit where overachievement is a perc, not a necessity.

[sec.101row23]

Originally Posted by EM31

The Indianapolis Colts have pretty much debunked this ridiculous myth for all time.... Period. End of story. End of Book. End of Library and time capsuled forever.

We got Gholston (cough cough) because we stupidly won game 16 for no damned good reason when the #3 overall would have been ours with a loss in game 16.

Can teams make bad picks with very high draft picks? Yes they can. Can teams find diamonds lower in the draft? Yes they can. But since nobody really knows for sure these players are graded along an asymptote and the chances of finding an all pro impact player in round-7 are vanishingly small. The drop from #1 to even #10 overall is massive in the mythical average draft class year.

The arguments against this approach were far more valid when the old CBA made top-6 picks almost into a salary cap liability. That is not true now.

If we are going to be noncompetitive anyway then I would much rather we get the higher draft pick IN EVERY ROUND. If you want to blindly repeat the same mantra then go ahead and repeat it but nobody is buying what you are selling any more. We tried it your way.

You really think that any coach or players are going to be fine with tanking a season so they can get a higher draft pick??? Listen to what you guys are trying to say. Lets tank two seasons so we can get this stud DE, I am sure that would go over well in the locker room before every game.

[PMarsico9]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

You really think that any coach or players are going to be fine with tanking a season so they can get a higher draft pick??? Listen to what you guys are trying to say. Lets tank two seasons so we can get this stud DE, I am sure that would go over well in the locker room before every game.

Again, Colts ahead of us in the first year of their rookie QB's campaign. And they won a Super Bowl tanking prior to Peyton's arrival.

The coach's job is to get the team to play hard. But a GM can stock a team with absolute junk, similar to this one, but avoid doing something like signing Landry to "develop Seventh Round Superstar Antonio Allen," for instance and tank the year without saying so.

The issue here is that they easily could have done that and basically were anyway by refusing to get a true threat to Sanchez with Orton, Campbell, and Henne all out there as UFA's and taking backup deals.

Or even keeping Stanton.

[Dreamers]

Wow some ignorant post here. Throwing games is pretty stupid no matter how you look at it. Also unless it IS A QB not worth it at all. Saying throw games to draft a OLB or DE is not only stupid but heartless. These players jobs are based on winning games. We have a lot of really good young talent here and it doesn't help them progress at all. Our biggest issues are confidence and team work throwing games yeah that helps. Friggen a man. How good was Houston after drafting Williams? How many top 10 picks did they have before having a winning season? What about Detroit, Cleveland, or SL how is that sucking for years helping those teams right now. Yeah it doesn't help a whole lot does it? Yeah OK you play to win the game. You know why? You play to make fans happy and going 3-13 doesn't make fans happy. Or the players that are good who leave because they are tired of loosing just to improve you draft stock.

[JB1089]

You don't tank a season for anyone but a quarterback.


I think Clowney is awesome. He's not a franchise savior. The best pass rush prospect since Julius Peppers. Peppers is great, but it wouldn't have been worth throwing away a year (or two, in this case) to get him.


No one thought it was worth tanking two years to get Luck. It would be the height of stupidity to do it for Clowney.




Anyway, 2014 is the year that we're going to be drafting our next quarterback.

[PMarsico9]

Originally Posted by JB1089

You don't tank a season for anyone but a quarterback.


I think Clowney is awesome. He's not a franchise savior. The best pass rush prospect since Julius Peppers. Peppers is great, but it wouldn't have been worth throwing away a year (or two, in this case) to get him.


No one thought it was worth tanking two years to get Luck. It would be the height of stupidity to do it for Clowney.




Anyway, 2014 is the year that we're going to be drafting our next quarterback.

Manziel. If not Clowney, then Manziel. I still think Clowney will be a DeMarcus Ware/JPP or greater talent, but if that's the case, then a QB it should be.

[EM31]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

You really think that any coach or players are going to be fine with tanking a season so they can get a higher draft pick??? Listen to what you guys are trying to say. Lets tank two seasons so we can get this stud DE, I am sure that would go over well in the locker room before every game.

I already said that I do not know about this specific DE and so others would have to decide whether or not he represents the kind of talent that makes this idea attractive. While I agree with the overall sentiment of the OP I have not advocated tanking two seasons for Clowney.

The approach appears to work for some teams in some cases. The fact that it appears to have worked for the Colts and probably for the next 10-15 years is really really irritating to me.

As to a coach and players, no. The GM, coach and veteran players will be PO'ed and that is why it needs to be done as the last thing a GM and coach do before getting fired, or under an interim administration, or (more likely) the very first thing that a new administration does once it comes in the front door. A GM and coach in year 4 cannot do this and survive. As to the vets well they are trade bait at this point and they are not going to survive a rebuilding anyway. Look at the Colts. They kept very few players. At least the ones that they retained can now feel that the team is heading somewhere good.

Mangold, Wilkerson, Ellis (maybe), Revis, Cromartie, Brick (maybe) and a few others are the ones I would worry about. Scott, Pace, Holmes and their ilk, not so much.

[EM31]

Originally Posted by JB1089

You don't tank a season for anyone but a quarterback.


I think Clowney is awesome. He's not a franchise savior. The best pass rush prospect since Julius Peppers. Peppers is great, but it wouldn't have been worth throwing away a year (or two, in this case) to get him.


No one thought it was worth tanking two years to get Luck. It would be the height of stupidity to do it for Clowney.




Anyway, 2014 is the year that we're going to be drafting our next quarterback.

The premise is that the year is lost anyway. The difference is between a 6 or 7 win season and possibly a 2 or 3 win season. If you think you are in the playoff hunt to begin with and in with a puncher's chance once you get there then this is not the strategy we are talking about.

[sec.101row23]

Originally Posted by PMarsico9

Manziel. If not Clowney, then Manziel. I still think Clowney will be a DeMarcus Ware/JPP or greater talent, but if that's the case, then a QB it should be.

LOL...way to stick to your plan!! Lets tank two seasons for uh.. uh.. yea.. that guy.

[EM31]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

LOL...way to stick to your plan!! Lets tank two seasons for uh.. uh.. yea.. that guy.

Is your objection to losing any game at any time no matter what the circumstances might be or is it to the specific plan as laid out by the OP?

[sec.101row23]

Originally Posted by EM31

Is your objection to losing any game at any time no matter what the circumstances might be or is it to the specific plan as laid out by the OP?

My objection was to the notion that the Jets should tank the rest of this season AND next so that they can acquire a top pick to select a DE in 2014.

[EM31]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

My objection was to the notion that the Jets should tank the rest of this season AND next so that they can acquire a top pick to select a DE in 2014.

So if he was coming out this year and if we were in a position to get him by losing out from here on in, what would your position be on that idea?

[sec.101row23]

Originally Posted by EM31

So if he was coming out this year and if we were in a position to get him by losing out from here on in, what would your position be on that idea?

No, no way. It isnt even debatable. What the hell kind of message do you send to your players when you want to intentionally lose the remaining 6 games for a draft pick?

[PMarsico9]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

No, no way. It isnt even debatable. What the hell kind of message do you send to your players when you want to intentionally lose the remaining 6 games for a draft pick?

That they are employees the same way you have a job and that the management is committed to winning, not moral victories.

Which is what losers are made out of.

Of course, this Front Office thinks Mark Sanchez is a capable NFL QB despite never once breaking 60% completion percentage in four seasons, which is generally regarded as the breaking point for AVERAGE QB's.

[EM31]

Originally Posted by sec.101row23

No, no way. It isnt even debatable. What the hell kind of message do you send to your players when you want to intentionally lose the remaining 6 games for a draft pick?

Again I am simply trying to find out what your position is. It seems to be like CanadaSteve's. i.e. not one inch of ground and not one blade of grass. Ever.

If it was the last game of the season and losing meant the #1 overall And Andrew Luck and winning meant say the #4 overall with a good player but by no means a great player then you would still be of the opinion that you never play to lose a game no matter what?

[Savage69]

Originally Posted by PMarsico9

1) If you think Clowney is "just a DE," you are seriously mistaken. Clowney is the best defensive prospect possibly ever.

2) If they had lost out at 4-12 they would've been in the top 10 of the draft with no issues. What do 8-8 or 7-9 get you?

This team hasn't been fully rebuilt since Parcells moved up to get 3 first rounders in 2000 and honestly build the team from scratch. We can dance around that though and keep plugging holes with junk like Austin Howard and letting this regime continue to tank picks.

First off we had 4 first rd picks in 2000 ours,one from the Pats for BB and 2 from Tampa for KJ.. The only moving up he did was giving a 1st and 2nd pick to move up higher in the first to get Ellis..