Resting starters for playoffs vs (1 Viewer)

[Fallerjw]

With all the talk of the Colts resting their starters, I thought I'd pose the following question:

Is it worse (use your own criteria) to rest your starters before the playoffs or to tank games at the end of the season so your team can get a better draft pick?

Both would be done to "help your team reach its goal", right?

Just wondering what people thought about this.

 

[r0llin_game]

Is this cerious thread??

 

[certificate]

I think that this is a valid question. Both are done to improve your team... resting starters to improve your team in the playoffs this year, tanking to improve your team next year.

 

[Fallerjw]

Is this cerious thread??

Yes, both of these are done to improve your team right? Isn't the end goal, to make your team better and win the Super Bowl?

 

[Fallerjw]

This is really interesting so far. I'm wondering why people are thinking it's worse to tank games to improve your draft choice than it is to rest your starters for the playoffs. One of them guarantees you a "better" result, the other is only speculation.

 

[Marauder]

Tanking to get a better draft pick is far worse but that is a self correcting problem in the NFL because GM's, Coaches and Players of losing teams have a much higher priority of playing to keep their jobs and playing for their next contract. Getting a high draft pick doesn't do you any good if you are not around to reap the benefits and it is rare that coaches and GM's of losing teams have any kind of job security.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Tanking to get a better draft pick is far worse but that is a self correcting problem in the NFL because GM's, Coaches and Players of losing teams have a much higher priority of playing to keep their jobs and playing for their next contract. Getting a high draft pick doesn't do you any good if you are not around to reap the benefits and it is rare that coaches and GM's of losing teams have any kind of job security.

NFL teams arent like fantasy teams. NFL franchises and players make their money by performing at a high level on the playing field. Tanking a game would cost the franchise far far more than any benefit from a slightly higher draft pick. I'm not sure a higher draft pick even benefits an NFL team anymore with the salary rules the way they are. Tanking a game certainly wouldnt do anything to benefit the individual players involved.

 

[Fallerjw]

Tanking to get a better draft pick is far worse but that is a self correcting problem in the NFL because GM's, Coaches and Players of losing teams have a much higher priority of playing to keep their jobs and playing for their next contract. Getting a high draft pick doesn't do you any good if you are not around to reap the benefits and it is rare that coaches and GM's of losing teams have any kind of job security.

NFL teams arent like fantasy teams. NFL franchises and players make their money by performing at a high level on the playing field. Tanking a game would cost the franchise far far more than any benefit from a slightly higher draft pick. I'm not sure a higher draft pick even benefits an NFL team anymore with the salary rules the way they are. Tanking a game certainly wouldnt do anything to benefit the individual players involved.

Trade value down?

 

[FUBAR]

Tanking to get a better draft pick is far worse but that is a self correcting problem in the NFL because GM's, Coaches and Players of losing teams have a much higher priority of playing to keep their jobs and playing for their next contract. Getting a high draft pick doesn't do you any good if you are not around to reap the benefits and it is rare that coaches and GM's of losing teams have any kind of job security.

NFL teams arent like fantasy teams. NFL franchises and players make their money by performing at a high level on the playing field. Tanking a game would cost the franchise far far more than any benefit from a slightly higher draft pick. I'm not sure a higher draft pick even benefits an NFL team anymore with the salary rules the way they are. Tanking a game certainly wouldnt do anything to benefit the individual players involved.

Trade value down?

What value? Honestly, would you rather have Stafford at his salary or Freeman at his? Jason Smith or Michael Oher?

Sure you might get Matt Ryan but more often you won't.

 

[Touchdown Syndrome]

Not even a doubt, IMO, that tanking games is far, far worse.

"Tanking" indicates not playing your hardest, or playing to lose.

In the NFL that makes no sense. Most are playing for their jobs from year to year, if not week to week.

GM's and coaches are fired based on wins and losses. I doubt many players, coaches, and GM's would be keen on putting their jobs in jeopardy just for a slightly higher pick that has as good a chance at success (or failure) than the pick they normally would receive.

The draft is a crapshoot. It would be like taking the money from your family's food budget for that week and spending it on lottery tickets. Your family is eating Ramen noodles for the week just so you could basically have the same chance at winning the lottery as you would have had without purchasing tickets at all. (Haha, did that analogy make sense?)

 

[Fallerjw]

Tanking to get a better draft pick is far worse but that is a self correcting problem in the NFL because GM's, Coaches and Players of losing teams have a much higher priority of playing to keep their jobs and playing for their next contract. Getting a high draft pick doesn't do you any good if you are not around to reap the benefits and it is rare that coaches and GM's of losing teams have any kind of job security.

NFL teams arent like fantasy teams. NFL franchises and players make their money by performing at a high level on the playing field. Tanking a game would cost the franchise far far more than any benefit from a slightly higher draft pick. I'm not sure a higher draft pick even benefits an NFL team anymore with the salary rules the way they are. Tanking a game certainly wouldnt do anything to benefit the individual players involved.

Trade value down?

What value? Honestly, would you rather have Stafford at his salary or Freeman at his? Jason Smith or Michael Oher?

Sure you might get Matt Ryan but more often you won't.

When you trade draft picks during the draft, don't the higher picks have more value?

 

[Angus82]

To me tanking is unthinkable. Being a Bills fan, I loved seeing Brian Brohm being given a shot to play. Going in, the Bills realistically didn't have a chance against Atlanta, but they didn't start him with intention of tanking. I just would rather have a team that fights to the end (or for their job) than watch a bunch of candy asss TO's that just give up at the end of the year. (Bye, Bye, Terrell. Thanks for the season ticket sales.)

To me, it seems that most teams would not tank because they do not want the headache that comes with a draft picks salary. (Did Oakland draft DHB over Crabs knowing what kind of cash that Crabs was going to demand?) The rookie salary is so out of whack that having the first pick in most years is almost a curse. You can't trade it, and you are going to over pay for it.

 

[Fallerjw]

Notice I didn't ask which is more likely to happen, I asked which is worse.

 

[LadyBeBop]

Notice I didn't ask which is more likely to happen, I asked which is worse.

And I voted for tanking. Tanking means you're playing to lose. By resting your starters, even though the chances of you winning are not great, there is still a chance of a victory. The backups are playing to win.

 

[Fallerjw]

Notice I didn't ask which is more likely to happen, I asked which is worse.

And I voted for tanking. Tanking means you're playing to lose. By resting your starters, even though the chances of you winning are not great, there is still a chance of a victory. The backups are playing to win.

Fair enough.