Originally posted by 9erred:
I was all for tanking the AZ game, I got so much grief on how you always have to play to win. Well the Cards tanked it and got the better draft position. If the niners lost, the niners could have secured,
1. Patrick Peterson
2. Colin Kaepernick (without sacrificing two picks, maybe just one).
3. Got Leonard Hankerson in the 3rd
I just keep thinking that you, and granted many others, got this ass-backwards.
1st, the team plays the game to win, not to improve our draft selection.
2nd, just how many games is it permissible to tank. Should the team start the tanking as soon as it is eliminated from the play offs?
3rd, if this were common practice, at any level of football, the sport would be literally destroyed. Do you really like football? It sounds more like you are a fan of the draft.
I happen to love football, and I loved it before I knew the the 49ers existed, the draft existed, and even before I knew that professional teams existed.
Think about this. If you play to lose, players, almost by definition, will not play their best. This playing to lose will drastically skew your ability to evaluate your team. (Remember there is NO defined limit on the number of games that should be tanked. It could be five or six.)
If you can not evaluate your team accurately, the draft becomes not much more than a game in and of itself. (see the 3rd point for reference)
A key element in having good draft is a good evaluation of your team. If your team is not playing to win how to carry out an honest and objective evaluation of your team.
[ Edited by buck on May 3, 2011 at 14:25:01 ]