Poll: Which would you rather have?

Originally posted by buck:
Not sure I get the drift on this question, but let me try.

We do not play games to win them. We play games to set-up our draft position for the following year.

So in a perfect year, we loose all sixteen games and are guaranteed to get the number one pick.

Last year, Green Bay was really stupid.


I just hate this crap, (remember the Bush Bowl).

The team should play to win each game. Fans should want the team to win each game the team plays.

In fact, the perfect season is winning all sixteen games, and picking last in the draft.

At what point has anybody said anything about loosing all or multiple games? Is that really what you think 57% of the people who have voted are saying?
Nobody (I hope) would advocate for loosing multiple games.

Winning meaningless games is pointless. Seriously guys how many years in a row is this were we've had this discussion. I want the momentum for next year. Bam. 3-6 once again and already out of the playoffs.

You know what winning meaningless games does. It makes you think Alex Smith can win a competitive game.

I don't care about missing out on Peterson because chances are Prince will be just as good but if this situation costs us Andrew Luck then f*ck this organization. If we're 0-5 or 1-5 next year call off the dogs because that playoff run is not happening. By calling off the dogs I don't mean laying down or quitting. It's benching Nolan/Sing losers.

Originally posted by jta854:

Originally posted by buck:
Not sure I get the drift on this question, but let me try.

We do not play games to win them. We play games to set-up our draft position for the following year.

So in a perfect year, we loose all sixteen games and are guaranteed to get the number one pick.

Last year, Green Bay was really stupid.


I just hate this crap, (remember the Bush Bowl).

The team should play to win each game. Fans should want the team to win each game the team plays.

In fact, the perfect season is winning all sixteen games, and picking last in the draft.

At what point has anybody said anything about loosing all or multiple games? Is that really what you think 57% of the people who have voted are saying?
Nobody (I hope) would advocate for loosing multiple games.

Well, no I do not think that anyone advocates losing all sixteen games. That part was just an attempt, apparently a failed attempt, at sarcasm.

My base understanding of football is that the team plays to win the game. It is not rocket science. If the team does not play to win, the sport is corrupted, it is degraded--it loses it value. This degradation is not, in my book, acceptable for any reason.

Those who disagree should tell me exactly where the line should be drawn. How many games a year can a team play with the intent of losing--one, two, maybe three.

I would say that if a person wants the team to lose enough games next year so we would have a better chance to select Mr. Luck, that person is more of a fan of the individual player than a fan of the team.

I just think the idea is so frigging stupid, it makes my blood boil. Again, remember the Bush bowl and the clamor for a Luck bowl has already begun.

Last year, one person on the board actually had the unmitigated gall to argue that people who felt like I do where, and I am sure this correct, hypocrites.

Perhaps, those who are not hypocrites should go ask the players if they would please lose a game so we could improve our draft position. Just imagine what Mr. Willis or Mr. Smith (Justin) would think, say, or do.

I doubt any one who advocates this inanity has the balls to put their position forward to the guys who play the game.

Anyway, that is just my humble opinion.

We've had top picks the last nine years and what has that brought us - more top picks. Winning is the name of the game, once you start winning it snowballs. Look at UCONN in the past NCAA tournament, when they started winning nothing could stand in their way, even though other teams had higher rated players.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by jta854:

Originally posted by buck:
Not sure I get the drift on this question, but let me try.

We do not play games to win them. We play games to set-up our draft position for the following year.

So in a perfect year, we loose all sixteen games and are guaranteed to get the number one pick.

Last year, Green Bay was really stupid.


I just hate this crap, (remember the Bush Bowl).

The team should play to win each game. Fans should want the team to win each game the team plays.

In fact, the perfect season is winning all sixteen games, and picking last in the draft.

At what point has anybody said anything about loosing all or multiple games? Is that really what you think 57% of the people who have voted are saying?
Nobody (I hope) would advocate for loosing multiple games.

Well, no I do not think that anyone advocates losing all sixteen games. That part was just an attempt, apparently a failed attempt, at sarcasm.

My base understanding of football is that the team plays to win the game. It is not rocket science. If the team does not play to win, the sport is corrupted, it is degraded--it loses it value. This degradation is not, in my book, acceptable for any reason.

Those who disagree should tell me exactly where the line should be drawn. How many games a year can a team play with the intent of losing--one, two, maybe three.

I would say that if a person wants the team to lose enough games next year so we would have a better chance to select Mr. Luck, that person is more of a fan of the individual player than a fan of the team.
I just think the idea is so frigging stupid, it makes my blood boil. Again, remember the Bush bowl and the clamor for a Luck bowl has already begun.

Last year, one person on the board actually had the unmitigated gall to argue that people who felt like I do where, and I am sure this correct, hypocrites.

Perhaps, those who are not hypocrites should go ask the players if they would please lose a game so we could improve our draft position. Just imagine what Mr. Willis or Mr. Smith (Justin) would think, say, or do.

I doubt any one who advocates this inanity has the balls to put their position forward to the guys who play the game.

Anyway, that is just my humble opinion.

I'm a fan of winning championships and it's becoming increasingly obvious that you need a franchise quarterback to accomplish that. If your crappy quarterback situation couldn't get it done the first 13 weeks a couple meaningless wins at the end of the year is not going to change that. All it does is give you false hope and you still stick with Alex for 2 years longer than you should have or you give Shaun Hill a year because you think he's a winner because he beat 2 teams that quit 8 weeks ago.

Originally posted by Hitman49:

Originally posted by English:
You dont throw games. You dont call for your team to throw games. You dont wish they had thrown a game.

Like all the posters who wanted the 49ers to throw the last few games the other year. So we could draft the cant-miss franchise saviour. Reggie Bush.

End thread.

Nobody said anything about throwing games...Noway the team should be throwing games for any reason.

But me as a fan would have liked a better position in the draft rather than a meaningless win against a bad team.

U have to look at the second round too...38th pick instead of the 45th pick.

You do know the difference between throwing a game and losing on purpose right? Because there isn't one. Throwing a game is exactly what you are talking about.

If, on game day, your not willing to play to lose to get the higher draft pick then why, 4 months later, are you wishing they had lost and we had a higher draft pick?

This is as inane a conversation at niner talk has ever seen. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME! ALWAYS!! If you don't agree with that then you should take up Russian Roulette.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by jta854:

Originally posted by buck:
Not sure I get the drift on this question, but let me try.

We do not play games to win them. We play games to set-up our draft position for the following year.

So in a perfect year, we loose all sixteen games and are guaranteed to get the number one pick.

Last year, Green Bay was really stupid.


I just hate this crap, (remember the Bush Bowl).

The team should play to win each game. Fans should want the team to win each game the team plays.

In fact, the perfect season is winning all sixteen games, and picking last in the draft.

At what point has anybody said anything about loosing all or multiple games? Is that really what you think 57% of the people who have voted are saying?
Nobody (I hope) would advocate for loosing multiple games.

Well, no I do not think that anyone advocates losing all sixteen games. That part was just an attempt, apparently a failed attempt, at sarcasm.

My base understanding of football is that the team plays to win the game. It is not rocket science. If the team does not play to win, the sport is corrupted, it is degraded--it loses it value. This degradation is not, in my book, acceptable for any reason.

Those who disagree should tell me exactly where the line should be drawn. How many games a year can a team play with the intent of losing--one, two, maybe three.

I would say that if a person wants the team to lose enough games next year so we would have a better chance to select Mr. Luck, that person is more of a fan of the individual player than a fan of the team.
I just think the idea is so frigging stupid, it makes my blood boil. Again, remember the Bush bowl and the clamor for a Luck bowl has already begun.

Last year, one person on the board actually had the unmitigated gall to argue that people who felt like I do where, and I am sure this correct, hypocrites.

Perhaps, those who are not hypocrites should go ask the players if they would please lose a game so we could improve our draft position. Just imagine what Mr. Willis or Mr. Smith (Justin) would think, say, or do.

I doubt any one who advocates this inanity has the balls to put their position forward to the guys who play the game.

Anyway, that is just my humble opinion.

I'm a fan of winning championships and it's becoming increasingly obvious that you need a franchise quarterback to accomplish that. If your crappy quarterback situation couldn't get it done the first 13 weeks a couple meaningless wins at the end of the year is not going to change that. All it does is give you false hope and you still stick with Alex for 2 years longer than you should have or you give Shaun Hill a year because you think he's a winner because he beat 2 teams that quit 8 weeks ago.

Throwing a game is absurd. But I'm not going to play guys who I gave up on. If they're not part of the long term solution they have little business being on the field once you're playing for pride only.

Sorry for quoting myself I meant to edit this part in.

A win 100% of the time. We've picked in the top 5, top 10 to many god damn times. It's bulls**t. If you don't say win the game you don't understand sports.

In the end, winning games get the money, gets the girl, gets the glory, what ever you want, and having top 5 draft picks gets you 15 minutes of fame every draft day.

I want competitiors, not losers. Those who would tank even for a single game should go home and cook rice and not be on the football field. Whether it is the owner, general manager, Coaches or players. Its one thing to rest your players for the playoffs and another thing to tank a game. Given, I would rest a player listed as doubtful or questionable, but that it is about it. I want people and so do coaches who are like Brady and Steve Young who have that fiery competitiors edge.

Ask the Colts, patriots, Steelers or eagles what they would rather have...

Draft positioning is the most overrated thing in the league

Good teams pick good players no matter where they are

Sounds like there is a bunch of different arguements here. I always want to win as a Niners Fan. What i hate is that every year we lose bad right out of the gate and our playoff hopes are crushed. We don't beat any competitive teams, only similar crappy teams. Towards the end of the year we get real crazy and when they realize there's nothing to play for, they let the offense air it out, they let the defense be aggressive and blitz. It's fun to watch but we are beating up on teams that have given up. A team that has no shot at making the playoffs, should look to the future. You never throw games or lose on purpose but you can sit some starters down and say, you guys aren't getting it done, we are going to give these younger guys a shot to see what they got. Are they more experienced than the rookies or benchwarmers? Yes! But experience hasn't done jack for us and neither has the momentum of winning at the end of the season to carry over to the next one. The only satisfying win that i can think of is the year that we kept denver out of the playoffs. This cardinal win is not memorable. The players want to win and so do the fans. However the backup players also want to win and show what they got. A coaching staff and organization should want to give the fans hope that maybe next year some of the younger talent can step in and get it done. In basketball when a team is getting beat down really bad the coach calls a timeout and benches his starters to make a point. he's saying your better than this but you're not playing that way so these younger inexperienced guys are going to get a shot. Whether the team comes back is irrelevant. The message to the players is still the same. We want to win but sometimes we have to take a step back to move forward. benching some starters that have played poorly may cost us some wins but it's not losing on purpose.

Originally posted by Sjceruti:
A win 100% of the time. We've picked in the top 5, top 10 to many god damn times. It's bulls**t. If you don't say win the game you don't understand sports.

In the end, winning games get the money, gets the girl, gets the glory, what ever you want, and having top 5 draft picks gets you 15 minutes of fame every draft day.

Winning meaningless games does not get you the girl, the glory, or the money. It gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside that you expel in the showers.

I'm going to give you guys our history over the past couple of years.

2008 Singletary goes 5-4 at the end of the year and everybody is convinced that he's the answer. I want winners. Shaun Hill is awesome he just wins baby. 2009 rolls around and we're 3-5 at the midway point.

2009 Alex Smith wins 4 out of the last 6 final games and all of the sudden we're convinced that he all needs is continuity and everything we be just grand. Bam 0-5 to start the season the following season.

You know what happens when a team quits. Actual change happens. You stop lying to yourself that all a team needs is a tweak and instead you revamp the roster.

I'm not advocating for us to quit, I'm just stating the obvious. Winning meaningless games late in the season does absolutely nothing for you unless your core is already built.

At the time - The win
Now- I'd take the loss.

I cannot rout against the 9ers during any game but I can see afterwards that sometimes it would have been better for us to lose a particular game. The same could be said after the 06 season but if we would have lost 1 more game we probably would gave drafted Reggie Bush who is an underachiever.

I could never ever want to lose