Wanting your team to lose

Where does everyone stand on wanting their team to lose once it becomes obvious that their season is in the tank in order to improve your position in the draft??

I've got no problem with it. Had my feelings on it challenged hard last night when the Redskins scored late to take our game with Dallas into OT and then when we set up for the game-winning fieldgoal. In the cold light of day though, I'm glad we didn't screw up our shot at taking our pick of all the QBs who aren't Andrew Luck (who will surely go to Indy) by picking up what would have been a meaningless win in the context of this season. I've made my peace with finishing 3-13 and it doesn't feel so bad when you consider how it might benefit you in the longer term.

I dont want to see teams i like ever lose but here is an example. I like the vikings and if i had the choice of them going 5-11 or 2-14, id take the second because it would mean they will get a top two draft pick. For instance if the vikings dont win another game, they would trade away the rights to luck and get the most unbelievable package of picks, even picking 2nd would get them kalil, id rather that than getting less of a player because of an extra win or two

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Losing a few more less meangingful games now should mean winning more in the future.

They should maybe institute a lottery system like the NBA to try to stop teams from tanking. In the NBA system, teams who don't make the playoffs get lottery balls (the lottery is weighted in favor of the worst teams) and draft order for first 3 picks is determined that way. After the 1st 3 picks are determine by lottery, it then goes by by losing record I believe.

A good example with the niners is this, if they didn't win a meaningless game against arizona they would have drafted pp7, i was happy when we drafted smith and so is everyone else now but a lot of people were upset that one game could result in us losing out on a legit cb. Even in the next draft, if you are picking in the top 5, you have luck, kalil, blackmon, claiborne etc but at 6 and 7, there is a decent drop off, one game is not worth it. Thts why i think teams picking after 28th should trade down and get an extra 2nd and third sometimes as there is far better value

i like the idea of the nba draft style mangler but i think it would be too controversial for the NFL as they wouldn't want all the claims of bias from fans towards those higher placed

Of course, draft order isn't necessarily the important part if you don't get the right player for your system or you get a flawed player.

Look at the draft where Alex Smith went number 1 and Aaron Rodgers slid all the way down to to 24th and look how that's turned out, though Smith may finally be on track for success (after 6 or 7 offensive coordinators).

Man, I watched that draft. Rodgers was projected to be a high pick, possibly a number 1. It was so painful every time the camera went to Rodgers sitting there at that table when they moved him into the green room as all the other marquee attendees were selected and he continued to slide.

I don't want the Browns to lose but I can see the benefits involved with it, I've already resigned to a losing season so it may as well be a bad losing season resulting in better draft picks, especially as beating teams like the Jaguars actually just puts more teams in a position to pick before us. One team I do want to go on a massive losing streak are the Falcons so the picks we got as part of the Julio Jones deal can be even better.

I want the Chiefs to lose every game until Pioli realises that Haleys love in with a 4th tier QB like Matt Cassel will not take the franchise beyond winning a weak division, and if that means suffering a 3-13 season then no issues, sadly the Colts are diabolical and look to have the #1 pick sewn up....

sorry derby but i just looked at your schedule and it is really tough I also know what you are saying with regards to where someone is drafted and how hey fit into a system mangler . The most annoying think for me is when a team ruin a player by drafting him for the wrong system, such as the chiefs have done with dorsey, im not for one second saying he is not playing well but people say he was one of the most dominating three techniques in college but he is now playing end in a 3-4. Where do you ever see a 6-1 3-4 end, just doesn't suit,

i agree the colts have the no 1 sewn up but the top 5 could include, st louis, minnesota, arizona, miami, carolina, washington. I actually think cleveland could end up with the 2nd pick and they then take rg3 if he declares or barkley

Do they have prize money in NFL like they do in the Premier League/ Champions League?

This would surely entice teams to win more, if the higher percentage win rate they have the more prize money they get?

Niner I know it's horrible, the only game I believe we have a shot of winning is the game against the Cards, I just don't see us beating the Bengals, Steelers or Ravens, so looking at it why don't we lose to the Jags and Cards and end 3-13 over a possible 5-11. I'm not trying to say teams should lose on purpose as that kind of ruins the game but you can definitely see the benefits to losing, especially with a team as talent needy as the Browns. As I said on the 2012 Draft Prospects thread I would much rather we give McCoy a real shot at running this team before we draft his replacement, the RB and WR positions lack any sort of depth.

For what it's worth I think the only draft pick worth going out of your way to get is the #1 pick, the difference between a 3-13 season and a 5-11 season is probably #2 to #5 pick and if you're not going to get the best player on the board then you can still take the best player an area you need to strengthen.

So you miss out on Luck and take the best DE/CB available.

Colts should be doing everything they can to lose every game, they trade away the #1 pick and gain several picks to make serious upgrades and with a healthy Manning they'll be a force again, maybe not in 2012 but definitely in 2013 (depending on the structure of all the picks)

The Mangler US_UK wrote:They should maybe institute a lottery system like the NBA to try to stop teams from tanking. In the NBA system, teams who don't make the playoffs get lottery balls (the lottery is weighted in favor of the worst teams) and draft order for first 3 picks is determined that way. After the 1st 3 picks are determine by lottery, it then goes by by losing record I believe.

I really don't think that teams do lose games on purpose. Why would a coach not try to get his team a win? Ok a loss might help his team get a higher draft pick the following, year but if his team goes 3-13, chances are he won't be in a job to take advantage of the high picks.

Also the players are professional and are in the most part winners. I very much doubt in such a physical sport that they would go "soft" into a play, a play could end their career. Also like the coach not playing to their best is going to result in the team losing and increases their chances of being cut or replaced as a starter by the stud rookie that your team just drafted!

If you think back a couple of weeks when Miami were in the Luck sweepstakes. Can you imagine a conversation between Sparano and Moore. "Matt any chance you stop making these completions, we really could do with Andrew Luck to replace you next year."

I agree that at this point in the seasons when your team is done, then in the cold light of day a loss is not the end of the world, but that is a whole lot different matter than teams tanking.

I like the NFL draft, it keeps things competitive. Look at the Lions they were an organisation going nowhere, had they not had a series of low picks chances are they would still be bottom feeders! As has been mentioned high draft picks still does not guarntee success, GMs still have to draft the right people.

There's no way a coach or team plays to lose in this day and age. For one its too dangerous, and in many cases, players are playing for a new contract, extension or a good FA deal. Why ruin your chances of a good pay day by helping the team get a high draft pick and potentially draft your replacement? In any case, its just not in a professionals nature to want to lose - these are the cream of the players from college and the only way they got into the NFL was because they are winners. Losing is an anathema to them.

All that said, I'm now hoping the Skins get a top 5 pick so we can get a QB prospect that we can rely on, and then in later rounds get some quality OL to protect him!

I've always wondered just how critical draft placement is. Are first picks statisically better then no. 2 picks, 2 better then 3, 3 over 4th etc..

Everyone knows Rodgers was 24th, Peterson was 7th, Suh and Megatron 2nd iirc.. I guess any draft can be a stud/bust no matter how high up the chain.

As an Oakland fan I couldn't care less how we finish in relation to the draft as we only have two picks left

I've never wanted my team to lose, as a Colts fan our possible undefeated season was there for us and I didn't want big Jim to rest anyone, I actually feel that it can be a hindrance on momentum.

TM, I suppose it depends on team needs really. From what I know of college football Luck is the best thing around but say the Colts wanted a defensive player or receiver, Luck would slip to a minumum of 2nd.

I think team need is important but when a once in a decade player comes along, you wouldn't take someone else with no 1 pick, you would try to obtain everything from another team and trade the pick, or draft the player then trade him. For instance,if the colts want a wideout, they could take blackmon at 1 but they could trade down with cleveland and get jeffery as well as two other 1sts and maybe another pick.

Thomond wrote:TM, I suppose it depends on team needs really. From what I know of college football Luck is the best thing around but say the Colts wanted a defensive player or receiver, Luck would slip to a minumum of 2nd.

Thomand - absolutely not my friend.
Luck is probably the best player to land at draft in many years, he will be the face of a franchise for 15 years and is already being spoken about in the same terms as Brady/Manning, he put simply is a #1 pick and the team with the biggest need at QB will trade up to get him, Colts will trade down and take a heap of picks for probably the next three years, or they take Luck and trade Manning (unlikely)

I think the concept has more legs this year because of the Rookie Cap.

In the past there was a school of thought that said if you ended up drafting high for a few years in a row, say 1-5-2 then you would inherit a mass of guaranteed money to unproven players that would slightly mess up your salary cap.
People have talked for a few years about teams trying to trade out of #1 but not finding any takers because a) the draft picks involved were too high and b) no one wanted to stump up the money when they could get (realistically) just as good a player, maybe in a different position, a few picks later.

So now that the money isn't so big you could conceive a team taking a punt on a couple of losses to get up the draftboard... however it wont be happening... watch Caldwell get fired at 0-16... i'm sure thats exactly what he wants to happen

Does remind me of a game a fair few years ago... might have been Arizona vs Someone on (I think the last day, if not Week 16) where the loser got the #1 pick and the winner got the number 2... that would have been an interesting decision!

Does nobody else have a doubt in the back of their mind over Luck? I can remember a number of sure fire #1 QB's in the past that turned into busts.

As to a team not wanting to take Luck at #1, you'd trade as you stand to get more value from the pick than the player. If, as is now likely, it is the Colts, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they go for Luck and trade Manning. Why stake your immediate future on a QB who can only be at the peak of his ability, if not on his way down (you don't know what impact his injury may have in 2-3 years time), instead of your next franchise QB?

skins4ever wrote:Does nobody else have a doubt in the back of their mind over Luck? I can remember a number of sure fire #1 QB's in the past that turned into busts.

As to a team not wanting to take Luck at #1, you'd trade as you stand to get more value from the pick than the player. If, as is now likely, it is the Colts, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they go for Luck and trade Manning. Why stake your immediate future on a QB who can only be at the peak of his ability, if not on his way down (you don't know what impact his injury may have in 2-3 years time), instead of your next franchise QB?

Yes, every player should have a doubt over them unless they have proven they're capable of playing in the NFL, and even then their performance is affected by quite a few factors.

It depends on the Colts staff views on Luck. Manning probably still has a few years left in him in which is probably enough time for the next "new-Manning" to come around, and the team have more than just QB needs which could be fixed by the amount of picks they would probably secure for the #1 this year. Depends though I read something saying Luck's dad could do what Archie Manning did with Eli.

I dont know if another new-manning will appear in the next few years as luck is the best qb prospect since 1998. I suppose luck, like any player could be a bust but i just do not see it. Jamarcus Russell had character flaws and conditioning issues so everyone knew he had that potential. I just struggle to see a weakness with luck, I mean he is 6-4, 235, can scramble for big pick ups, plays great with a poor set of receivers, used to a run heavy team, has a huge arm, very smart guy obviously plus he already calls his own plays at the line of scrimmage this season after getting more imput in play- calling. It is also really obvious that he loves the game. If you give him a woods, blackmon, jeffery, his stats would be even better.

[quote="Derbyblue"]

skins4ever wrote:Does nobody else have a doubt in the back of their mind over Luck? I can remember a number of sure fire #1 QB's in the past that turned into busts.

It depends on the Colts staff views on Luck. Manning probably still has a few years left in him in which is probably enough time for the next "new-Manning" to come around

True about there will always be in a "new-Manning" coming along somewhere along the line, but when he does will the Colts be in a position to take him. With Luck they look like they are going to be perfectly placed to grab him. If they believe he is going to be a Franchise QB for the next Decade, then I think they would be mad to pass on him. Of Course there is a risk in drafting him, but there is a risk in every draft choice.

It will take a brave GM to pass on Luck.

Dorothy

I've said many times in here when Peyton is fit the Colts have an elite QB and he can play at that level for another 3 years, they would be mad to draft Luck and sit him on the bench. They would become a real force if they traded down and received a bunch of picks that enabled them to strengthen their O and D-lines and maybe a RB, it may take more than 1 draft but they'd be real contenders in 2013 for my money...

In Monday Morning QB Peter King hinted that taking Luck and trading Manning isn't too far fetched. The section was looking at the financial implications of each but I'll just quote the end of his argument:

Bottom line: The cap hit for keeping Manning and drafting Luck would be quite tolerable, but there's significant motivation for the Colts to have hard proof that Manning can play by February. It's almost inconceivable to think if he were still struggling physically come early February that the Colts would shell out $35 million to keep a 36-year-old player whose health they aren't sure about.

TM, I suppose it depends on team needs really. From what I know of college football Luck is the best thing around but say the Colts wanted a defensive player or receiver, Luck would slip to a minumum of 2nd.

They'll take Luck or trade the pick for several other picks (and therefore improve a good chunk of the squad). There's no point at this draft picking any one other than Luck as he is either a great asset or the best bargaining tool.

Manning isn't getting any younger and this neck injury seems pretty bad and who knows what long term issues that might cause. Taking Luck and trading Manning for some good picks would allow the Colts to rebuild around the best younger talent in years.

Grizzly wrote:Dorothy

I've said many times in here when Peyton is fit the Colts have an elite QB and he can play at that level for another 3 years, they would be mad to draft Luck and sit him on the bench. They would become a real force if they traded down and received a bunch of picks that enabled them to strengthen their O and D-lines and maybe a RB, it may take more than 1 draft but they'd be real contenders in 2013 for my money...

Its a valid arguement you put forward for trading away from #1 in order to gain a war chest of picks and if the Colts go down that route, I would not kill them for it.

However I think that looking long term that the opporunity to have Manning passing the QB Franchise tag to Luck, who has the potential to the lead the team for a decade or so is too good to pass up. We have seen so many teams stagnate for years after an elite Franchise QB has retired, Colts through sucking for Luck, might just have avoided it. Short term pain for long term gain.

Agree to a point, but I don't make Peyton close to retiring, assuming his neck recovers fully he can play at the same high level for the next 3 years, is it worth taking the #1 pick, paying Luck a fortune to swalk around with a clipboard for 3 years ?
Peyton is NFL streetwise, Luck isn't, Peyton is a known talent, Luck has potential but so did Jamarcuss Russel, David Carr, Tim Couch and Ryan Leaf - you get guarantees with Peyton not with rookies who haven't yet sampled the pro stage....

Yeah but for every bust 1st overall pick, there is a Troy Aikman, Payton Manning, John Elway or Terry Bradshaw all Either in or on their way to Canton as well as shed load of Pro Bowl calibre QBs.

Rodgers rarely started (if ever) in his first three years at Green Bay and it seems to have worked out ok.

Every draft pick is a gamble, and certainly a first round pick, teams have to trust their talent evaluation. As for Luck being a potential bust, that is possible. However so is it possible that a couple of the picks they "win" in the Luck trade don't fulfil their potential. That is the beauty of the draft system over the transfer system we have in Football. In the EPL Alex Ferguson or whoever takes a punt the latest young sensation and if does not work, he just gets the cheque book out and buys someone else, recruiting mistakes are far more costly to teams future of challenging for the title than in most other sports.

Colts decision is certainly further complicated by the Manning factor. We know he is elite and will continue to be, assuming he returns to full health. Earlier I said it will be a brave GM who passes on Luck and I standby it.

Given the factors at play, I see only 2 scenarios if the Colts end up with the #1 pick. They keep Manning as mentor, a la Favre/Rodgers, or they trade Manning. As said above, they need to be sure he's 100% in Jan/Feb and if not they have to look to the future. They won't get good value for the #1 pick if Luck is as good as expected, as the days of the blockbuster Bears/Cowboys trade are over. The Raiders trade for Palmer is a big exception to the rule. They are better off taking Luck and then seeing what offers they get for Manning. As said, Luck may turn out to be a bust, but you can't know that on day 1 and the balance of evidence would lead you to take him without hesitation.

^^ got a third option, and the one I really think that Colts should definitely consider, if Manning's willing to play ball.

From the Colts' perspective: they could cut Manning and only be on the hook for another 6 mil after this season, but if they don't do that, then they're on the hook for the entirety of the length of the contract. With Luck on board, why would they guarantee that massive chunk of salary cap to a player who may never play close to the way he used to following the surgery, if he ever plays again at all. The size of that contract will definitely hamper trade options - which team would give up either premium draft picks or their best players (would the Colts demand anything less in return), while committing to tying up a large portion of the salary cap, for a player that they don't know will prove to be any good? Ok, MAYBE Dan Snyder would think about it, but that'd literally be it.

From Manning's perspective: do you really want to go to another team when you've been synonymous with Indy for over a decade? More importantly, you're a ridiculously wealthy human being. You've fractured & needed to have fused part of your spine - one bad hit could have life-altering ramifications (trust me, I've just been through something very similar myself, and had to stop playing football as a result - or risk permanent paralysis). Do you really want to gamble your quality of life when you already have more money than most people could dream of?

Now, looking at the state of the Colts: can anyone seriously think that Jim Caldwell isn't fired by the moment the season's over?

When you change head coaches, you tend to hire a whole new coaching staff.

Who has effectively been fulfilling all the duties of offensive co-ordinator for at least the past 6-7 in Indianapolis?

Who has been one of the utter elite quarterbacks in the NFL for the past ten years, and is undoubtedly in the conversation of the greatest of all time? Maybe one who might decide it's not worth risking his health and quality of life when he's earned so much his family could live off of it for the next two generations, and instead retire, and be looking for a protege who he can mentor, and to whom he can impart his knowledge of the game, and train to rise to the heady heights he himself once scaled?

And most importantly, barring a decision by Tony Dungy to unretire, is there anyone in the world who could join the coaching staff of the Indianapolis Colts and instantly command the respect of every single player in that locker room like Peyton Manning would?

Mark it down. End of the season, Jim Caldwell is fired, Peyton Manning retires, and is instantly offered the role of offensive co-ordinator for the Indianapolis Colts.

Dorothy - Rodgers wasn't costing the Packers #1 pick money, he went 23rd or thereabouts.

Gur - Peyton only retires if he doesn't recover from his ops and given that Irsay was suggesting last weekend that he could yet play this season that makes that scenario even less likely.

Luck needs to be considered in all this, he's seen a stream of rookie QBs enter the NFL start immediately and do well - and I'm refering to the high picks like Bradford, Stafford, Newton etc, he could easily make noises a la Eli Manning if he thinks he's sitting on an Indianapolis bench for a few years

GurTPL wrote: Who has been one of the utter elite quarterbacks in the NFL for the past ten years, and is undoubtedly in the conversation of the greatest of all time? Maybe one who might decide it's not worth risking his health and quality of life when he's earned so much his family could live off of it for the next two generations, and instead retire, and be looking for a protege who he can mentor, and to whom he can impart his knowledge of the game, and train to rise to the heady heights he himself once scaled?

Maybe it's just me but I don't really see this aspect in Peyton's character. He strikes me as more of a Favre who, if not the centre of attention, isn't interested. I can't see him doing the mentor/improve others thing.

GurTPL beat me to it, I was thinking about pretty much the same thing earlier today. Though I'm not sure about Caldwell being fired at the end of the season, as I think the feeling was without Manning they were never going to do as well as in recent seasons, maybe people weren't expecting 0-16 bad but we all knew it wasn't going to be pretty. A side issue though could it be too much pressure for Luck? I can imagine getting taken 1st in any draft and being a franchises future must be quite a lot of pressure, but on top of this they cut/trade/retire one of the elite QB's and current face of the franchise to make it easier to pick you?

Dorothy and Grizzly you both make good points, do they take more draft picks now and have a few more shots at the Super Bowl with Manning, or take his replacement and build the side around him? It will take a brave GM to pass up the chance to take Luck (unless a lot of picks are involved) but it must take a brave GM to be prepared to get rid of the man who has been the face of that franchise since he was drafted and who will probably still be capable of leading the team successfully when fully recovered from the injury.

If the Colts take Luck, can't find a trade to get rid of Manning and don't want the $30million wage bill and end up cutting him does he make it past waivers?

Manning won't mentor a kid like Luck at this stage. If he was in Brunell's situation and just holding a spot on the roster, he might, but if he comes back to play, he'll expect to start and to do so for some time. He may be happy with Luck behind him for 2-3 years, and it may work out a wise decision for all (given that Manning may well be fragile from this injury), a la Rodgers and Favre.

But if Manning is back to full health and feels he can do another 4-5 seasons, he'll want to move on now while he can establish himself somewhere else, rather than know he'll become a 2nd stringer before his playing days are done. He'll be another Montana. At that point his contract isn't a factor as he'll re-sign wherever he ends up and turn it into a multi-year deal.

Didn't Peyton sign a 5 year deal in the Summer ?
I seem to remember it was structure with a sliding payscale down in teh final 2 years, so on that basis the Colts clearly see him as their man for 3 years, so the question is, is there value in drafting the best QB to hit draft in years, pay him #1 money and park him on the bench for at least 3 years ?

Grizzly wrote:Didn't Peyton sign a 5 year deal in the Summer ?
I seem to remember it was structure with a sliding payscale down in teh final 2 years, so on that basis the Colts clearly see him as their man for 3 years, so the question is, is there value in drafting the best QB to hit draft in years, pay him #1 money and park him on the bench for at least 3 years ?

With the new rookie pay scale how much is the money for the #1 pick? He doesn't have to be parked on the bench for three years, you can let Manning take the reigns for a year or two teaching/mentoring Luck then when you've shown Manning still has it and is healthy then there should be more demand for him and hopefully Luck should be able to step up.

Derbyblue wrote:

Grizzly wrote:Didn't Peyton sign a 5 year deal in the Summer ?
I seem to remember it was structure with a sliding payscale down in teh final 2 years, so on that basis the Colts clearly see him as their man for 3 years, so the question is, is there value in drafting the best QB to hit draft in years, pay him #1 money and park him on the bench for at least 3 years ?

With the new rookie pay scale how much is the money for the #1 pick? He doesn't have to be parked on the bench for three years, you can let Manning take the reigns for a year or two teaching/mentoring Luck then when you've shown Manning still has it and is healthy then there should be more demand for him and hopefully Luck should be able to step up.

I think Cam got $22m over 4 years all guaranteed - massive drop on what Bradford got a year earlier but still a massive chunk of your salary cap.

I just hold the view that Peyton is the Colts man, if he recovers from him neck ops then he is an elite QB, Luck may be an elite QB but everyone knows Peyton already is, he just signed a 5 year deal so clearly the Colts aren't planning his replacement any time soon and as others have intimated he is a one franchise player, the face of the Colts and I don't think either the club or the player want to jeopardise that, I expect the Indianapolis faithful would be rioting if their hero was forced out....

Not sure if this is a dumb question, but are loans allowed in the NFL?

Could Indy pick Luck, then loan him to a non-Conference team for a couple of years?

I tend to side with Grizzly in all of this. It's going to be a fascinating offseason to see just where the Colts go with this. One thing that an 0-16 screams to me is that you have holes in your roster all over the place. Manning clearly has been covering all those holes up over the years and this season has probably enhanced his reputation without him even throwing a ball because it shows just how much he has been carrying this team on his own.

Personally, I think regardless of what Manning does and how he recovers, the Colts should be looking to trade that #1 pick away because it has probably never been so valuable given how good Luck seems to be and all the holes that the Colts will be able to try and fill with the high value picks they receive for it over the next season or two. Someone will be desperate to get Luck if they think they can't progress any further without a decent QB. If the Colts can draft well with the pick they receive for the #1 pick then they can draft a QB down the line - it doesn't need to be a #1 pick - Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the league just now and he was #24. Drew Brees was a second-rounder. We all know about Tom Brady and where he was drafted but he's the exception rather than the rule. Point is, if you want a good QB then you usually have to spend a 1st or 2nd rounder on him but it doesn't need to be a #1 pick. They also don't need "the next Manning". They just need someone who is good and who can fit into a team that is well stocked at key positions that have been replenished with the picks they get from trading away this year's #1 pick.