Merged x 1 Billion: All Things 'Suck for Luck'

"padre31 wrote:

It really does though, 4 wins in the NFL is a huge difference, if you have a D playing well, as we did under Saban, it makes 08 possible, if you have a D that collapses the new HC has little choice but to split resources trying to fix both units.

No 2-14 team is going to bring it's core back, a 6-10 team, with close losses, has a better shot of bouncing back.

6 of 11 starters on D were the same from 2007-2008. Going 1-15 didn't contaminate Roth, Bell, Will allen, Holliday, Joey Porter, etc.

It's nonsense.

"padre31 wrote:

It really does though, 4 wins in the NFL is a huge difference, if you have a D playing well, as we did under Saban, it makes 08 possible

You do realize that we went 1-15 between Saban and 08, right?

"Vendigo wrote:

What's wrong with getting both? It's not like drafting Luck and hiring a very good coach/GM are mutually exclusive by some mysterious law of the universe.

I don't disagree. But ownership and a front office not being committed to winning, and not being committed to the 53 guys on the roster right now, would be prohibitive to a lot of that IMO.

"padre31 wrote:

And when you see Bradford having success with a bag full of nothing at Wr, Jones, and a mediocre season, with a strong D, means we do not start over at -0-.

Instead of handing off to SJax, Jones hits up DTrain for example.

SFL excludes that, if a Rb goes over 1k yds, and 2 Wr's go over 1k yds, with poor Qb play, and a D that is competent, there is hope.

Those things might happen and you still go 2-14 compared to 6-10 because most games are decided by one or two plays that can go either way.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Finishing 2-14 isn't the problem. I have no problem with being bad, and getting Andrew Luck. The problem is the organization not being committed to winning this year. Players are not going to respect that.

Suck for Luck is a fan thing.

How is the organization not trying to win? They put out a team that many here thought was a playoff contender. Those people and the organization were wrong. and now we have injuries to boot. It happens.

"schmolioot wrote:

Suck for Luck is a fan thing.

How is the organization not trying to win? They put out a team that many here thought was a playoff contender. Those people and the organization were wrong. and now we have injuries to boot. It happens.

Hasn't happened yet. But things like putting Pat Devlin in, etc. will be a pretty obvious indicator, not only to fans, but to the rest of the NFL.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

I don't disagree. But ownership and a front office not being committed to winning, and not being committed to the 53 guys on the roster right now, would be prohibitive to a lot of that IMO

It's really no different from 2007 at all - and that lousy season didn't stop the team from competing hard a year later under a new coaching staff. Oh, and back then, we basically waved the "not committed to winning now" flag when we traded Chris Chambers and played John Beck.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Hasn't happened yet. But things like putting Pat Devlin in, etc. will be a pretty obvious indicator, not only to fans, but to the rest of the NFL.

Well we're not putting Devlin in. But if Matt Moore got hurt, what else are we supposed to do? We are devloping the guy and if you're down to your third QB, you are pretty much done anyway.

Last year, Arizona started two UDFA rookie QBs and no one suggested they were deliberately tanking the season.

"Vendigo wrote:

You do realize that we went 1-15 between Saban and 08, right?

Sure, look at the 08 starters, the core was already here, they just added Penny and subtracted JT.

"Vendigo wrote:

It's really no different from 2007 at all - and that lousy season didn't stop the team from competing hard a year later under a new coaching staff. Oh, and back then, we basically waved the "not committed to winning now" flag when we traded Chris Chambers and played John Beck.

And yet, they took Big Jake #1 overall.

"Vendigo wrote:

It's really no different from 2007 at all - and that lousy season didn't stop the team from competing hard a year later under a new coaching staff. Oh, and back then, we basically waved the "not committed to winning now" flag when we traded Chris Chambers and played John Beck.

Thank you.

The whole notion is nonsense. I think some people just can't wrap their minds about wanting to lose or at least not caring about the outcomes. Particularly because in 2007 we were dying to get that one win.

"Vendigo wrote:

It's really no different from 2007 at all - and that lousy season didn't stop the team from competing hard a year later under a new coaching staff. Oh, and back then, we basically waved the "not committed to winning now" flag when we traded Chris Chambers and played John Beck.

Yes, I would venture to say that Wayne Huizenga, Randy Mueller, and Cam Cameron had little to no respect after that year. And how many players were we able to keep from that 07 team? The players had such little respect for the organization after that, that the next regime had to flush out as many as possible.

In the case of Huizenga, ignorance/incompetence was the obvious excuse. The guy had no clue. Stephen Ross seems a lot sharper, and I don't see that excuse holding up.

"padre31 wrote:

Sure, look at the 08 starters, the core was already here, they just added Penny and subtracted JT

So what exactly would stop a new coaching staff from keeping the 2011 core when nothing stopped this coaching staff from keeping the 07 core after a 1-15 season?

"padre31 wrote:

And yet, they took Big Jake #1 overall.

Maybe a mistake. One that would not (I think) be repeated this time

It wasnt that long ago Belichick and the Pats were 6-10. The next year they started 1-3 including a loss to the Bungles back when they were the Bungles. Some people in Boston where calling for BB's head. That same year they won super bowl. All because of one player.

Dont tell me one franchise qb cant turn a garbage team into a legitimate team. Look at Indy. Hell, take away fitzgerald the Bills are winless right now.

The best thing for the future of this franchise is getting Luck. If you think we would be better off going 6-10 than getting andrew luck, im sorry i think your nuts

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Yes, I would venture to say that Wayne Huizenga, Randy Mueller, and Cam Cameron had little to no respect after that year. And how many players were we able to keep from that 07 team? The players had such little respect for the organization after that, that the next regime had to flush out as many as possible.

In the case of Huizenga, ignorance/incompetence was the obvious excuse. The guy had no clue. Stephen Ross seems a lot sharper, and I don't see that excuse holding up.

We kept plenty of guys. Soliai, W. allen, J. allen, Bell, roth, Joey Porter, Camarillo, Ginn, Carey, RB and Ricky, Vonnie Holliday, etc., all played roles for this team the last year three years and all were kept or let go (except Roth) approximately when they would have been let go anyway by Cameron/Mueller had they stayed

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Yes, I would venture to say that Wayne Huizenga, Randy Mueller, and Cam Cameron had little to no respect after that year. And how many players were we able to keep from that 07 team?

Erm. Pretty much all of those we wanted to?

"padre31 wrote:

And when you see Bradford having success with a bag full of nothing at Wr, Jones, and a mediocre season, with a strong D, means we do not start over at -0-.

Instead of handing off to SJax, Jones hits up DTrain for example.

SFL excludes that, if a Rb goes over 1k yds, and 2 Wr's go over 1k yds, with poor Qb play, and a D that is competent, there is hope.

Bradford hype withstanding when I want Landry Jones I see pinpoint accuracy. I mean it is just excellent, with good arm strength. His release is exceptionally fast. I'm envisioning Marino like days with much stronger rushing up the middle with Jones. With how fast he gets the ball out (people consider that a problem, but he's not always dinking and dunking), Jones and a strong running game are a recipe for Madden numbers. Jones is also good in the red zone, capable of throwing a number of routes Henne just isn't capable of especially the fade. Like I said though the accuracy and them arm strength of Jones is very tempting. The key is running the ball. Spread offenses like this succeed when you have a heck of a running back combo flat out running over undersized dime defenses up the middle.

Could it be the base offense, absolutely. I would love to see 3-4 defenses have to put their dime defenses out for sixty minutes, bullied around by a short passing attack. Against my team, you aren't teeing off on an unprotected QB looking down the field. You are getting run over, while spread out. It is ugly, physical brutal football and your CBs will break down after getting blocked, run at, and repeatedly stiff-armed again and again.

Oh and then comes Tim Tebow as a change-up to my fast ball. He'll run over your CBs too.

"schmolioot wrote:

Well we're not putting Devlin in. But if Matt Moore got hurt, what else are we supposed to do? We are devloping the guy and if you're down to your third QB, you are pretty much done anyway.

Why would Mike Pouncey even come in unless its a game day? Why would Cam Wake practice? Whats the point, the team is done for the year.

"schmolioot wrote:

Last year, Arizona started two UDFA rookie QBs and no one suggested they were deliberately tanking the season.

Because the motive wasn't there.

Why would Mike Pouncey even come in unless its a game day? Why would Cam Wake practice? Whats the point, the team is done for the year.

Come on. Any team down to their 3rd qB is in trouble. All the players know it but they come in and do their jobs because that's what they do.

Because the motive wasn't there.

How do you know? Maybe they really wanted Newton but simply won too many games.

"schmolioot wrote:

Thank you.

The whole notion is nonsense. I think some people just can't wrap their minds about wanting to lose or at least not caring about the outcomes. Particularly because in 2007 we were dying to get that one win.

I certainly wasn't dying for a win. I was rather indifferent. Its clear the team had quit.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

I certainly wasn't dying for a win. I was rather indifferent. Its clear the team had quit.

Most people did not want to go 0-16 and live with that indigintiy.

Although the Lions don't seem to be bothered much by it now.

"schmolioot wrote:

Most people did not want to go 0-16 and live with that indigintiy.

Although the Lions don't seem to be bothered much by it now.

The indignity to me isn't in the W/L, but in the actual effort and commitment.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Because the motive wasn't there

Because the rookie cap wasn't there. This whole "Suck for Luck" business would look a lot different if you had to give the guy an 80+ million dollar contract. It wouldn't make him a worse prospect, but the fact that you will get him for basically mediocre FA money makes the prize all the more enticing.

It's going to be about 4/24m all guaranteed. That's nothing.