SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS at ARIZONA CARDINALS - 2020 Week 16

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by Niners99:

My point is, you can't EVER get into the mindset of losing because you might get someone better in the draft. Its a toxic way to operate. You try to win every single game regardless, and where you pick is where you pick. The players are risking their health each week, and their performance is tied to their future pay, so nobody is going half speed or playing to lose on the field. Execs cant look their team in the eye and tell them they have to go risk their health in a game they prefer to lose.

You make it sound like teams don't throw games. If we were 10-5 with the #5 seed clinched and nothing to play for we'd rest every starter we can and call a vanilla game. You wouldn't blink an eye.

You can do that at 2-13 too. The Jets aren't gaining a thing from winning these past 2 weeks. Gase is still going to be fired. So what momentum is carried forward? Losing culture? The only thing that reverses that is talent. Culture doesn't win games players do. Where's Bill's culture now without Brady? All you're doing is shooting yourselves in the foot from acquiring that talent. It's not hard to tank and no one blames you. You shut everyone down that matters and is banged up and the jv squad will lose on their own.

I probably posted in the wrong thread about how history bears out "meaningless wins" and QB draft picks. It's in https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/194527-2021-nfl-draft-position-who-root/page21/ post #306.#

The skinny is that there is no clear cut advantage in picking a few picks earlier in the first round as long as you make a pick. For every Manning over Leaf in 1998 there is a Couch over McNabb a year after that. There are no sure-fire "generational talents" at #1. There are just too many variables, including injury (Palmer, Luck).

Tanking doesn't work long term in the NFL because of the shortness of players' careers. It doesn't work short term because there is too much volatility and hit/miss potential. Baseball is the typical tanking paradigm. But baseball has no salary floor and no voidable contracts for cutting, while it plays 10 times more regular season games and players stay in the minors for up to 6 years. This means that squads are large and talent can be brought up slowly, at least until arbitration/Rule 5 vulnerability becomes an issue. Plenty of time to see what you have on the cheap. In the NFL it's perform now or discard immediately. Rookies are thrown to the feeding frenzy of a few, violent regular season games straight away. And they're cheap: if they don't immediately perform or they get injured, they're pushed to the side by the pipeline of more young talent next year - the cheapness of rookie contracts and the non-guaranteed nature of the large part of NFL contracts makes this cost effective. And even in baseball, tanking doesn't always work. As a fan of the losingest team in history (Phillies) with TEN years since the last playoff run I can attest to that.

Basketball is slightly more tank-friendly. Squads are small and player potential is much more measurable in actual metrics than in the NFL. The equivalents of Mike Mamula (another Philly reference there) occur in basketball to, especially back in the 1980s and 1990s, and so do high drafted kids who are basically skyscraper high and nothing else (again, as a Philly resident in the 1990s I remember Shawn Bradley - shudder). But in the end the Lakers traded away all their #2 picked players (some of them rather good like Russel and Ingram) and just went superstar duo. It's easier when you have squads of 12.

It's stupid to want to lose games in the NFL for the sake of a few draft spots. Those few draft spots make little difference in the end, while winning helps, even if the players and coaches who won are elsewhere next year. Basically: you are less of a joke. The Jets have earned a measure of respect for playing hard and with pride - they would have been at least 3-12 now but for the idiocy of moron Gregg Williams. They are not a byword for futility like the Lions or the Browns. Their fans like to moan a lot, being entitled New York fans, but ask Lions or Browns fans whether they would have traded all those #1 draft opportunities for those couple of championship games that the Jets went to, even if it meant also witnessing the Butt Fumble.

Originally posted by paulk205:

I probably posted in the wrong thread about how history bears out "meaningless wins" and QB draft picks. It's in https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/194527-2021-nfl-draft-position-who-root/page21/ post #306.#

The skinny is that there is no clear cut advantage in picking a few picks earlier in the first round as long as you make a pick. For every Manning over Leaf in 1998 there is a Couch over McNabb a year after that. There are no sure-fire "generational talents" at #1. There are just too many variables, including injury (Palmer, Luck).

Tanking doesn't work long term in the NFL because of the shortness of players' careers. It doesn't work short term because there is too much volatility and hit/miss potential. Baseball is the typical tanking paradigm. But baseball has no salary floor and no voidable contracts for cutting, while it plays 10 times more regular season games and players stay in the minors for up to 6 years. This means that squads are large and talent can be brought up slowly, at least until arbitration/Rule 5 vulnerability becomes an issue. Plenty of time to see what you have on the cheap. In the NFL it's perform now or discard immediately. Rookies are thrown to the feeding frenzy of a few, violent regular season games straight away. And they're cheap: if they don't immediately perform or they get injured, they're pushed to the side by the pipeline of more young talent next year - the cheapness of rookie contracts and the non-guaranteed nature of the large part of NFL contracts makes this cost effective. And even in baseball, tanking doesn't always work. As a fan of the losingest team in history (Phillies) with TEN years since the last playoff run I can attest to that.

Basketball is slightly more tank-friendly. Squads are small and player potential is much more measurable in actual metrics than in the NFL. The equivalents of Mike Mamula (another Philly reference there) occur in basketball to, especially back in the 1980s and 1990s, and so do high drafted kids who are basically skyscraper high and nothing else (again, as a Philly resident in the 1990s I remember Shawn Bradley - shudder). But in the end the Lakers traded away all their #2 picked players (some of them rather good like Russel and Ingram) and just went superstar duo. It's easier when you have squads of 12.

It's stupid to want to lose games in the NFL for the sake of a few draft spots. Those few draft spots make little difference in the end, while winning helps, even if the players and coaches who won are elsewhere next year. Basically: you are less of a joke. The Jets have earned a measure of respect for playing hard and with pride - they would have been at least 3-12 now but for the idiocy of moron Gregg Williams. They are not a byword for futility like the Lions or the Browns. Their fans like to moan a lot, being entitled New York fans, but ask Lions or Browns fans whether they would have traded all those #1 draft opportunities for those couple of championship games that the Jets went to, even if it meant also witnessing the Butt Fumble.

See the problem with this post is that with the 1st pick you have the choice between Couch and McNabb. Nobody forced Cleveland to take Couch. To take it further you can trade out and get a boat load of picks so someone else can bust on Tim Couch.

Just looking at who went 1st is not quite accurate. But in the Jets case you have one if the best prospects who came out in years. No one was saying that about Tim Couch. This isn't a do I take Couch, Smith or McNabb scenario. You either take Lawrence at 1 or you trade out and get a king's ransom. Win-win. Of course they take the only loser scenario on the board and that's to end up winning a couple of pointless games.

Detroit hasn't been picking early since taking Stafford and has at least made the playoffs several times. They actually have a better record than the Jets over the past decade. Still bottom 10 but they have improved. Doubt they'd be that without the 0-16 year and Stafford pick.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by paulk205:

I probably posted in the wrong thread about how history bears out "meaningless wins" and QB draft picks. It's in https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/194527-2021-nfl-draft-position-who-root/page21/ post #306.#

The skinny is that there is no clear cut advantage in picking a few picks earlier in the first round as long as you make a pick. For every Manning over Leaf in 1998 there is a Couch over McNabb a year after that. There are no sure-fire "generational talents" at #1. There are just too many variables, including injury (Palmer, Luck).

Tanking doesn't work long term in the NFL because of the shortness of players' careers. It doesn't work short term because there is too much volatility and hit/miss potential. Baseball is the typical tanking paradigm. But baseball has no salary floor and no voidable contracts for cutting, while it plays 10 times more regular season games and players stay in the minors for up to 6 years. This means that squads are large and talent can be brought up slowly, at least until arbitration/Rule 5 vulnerability becomes an issue. Plenty of time to see what you have on the cheap. In the NFL it's perform now or discard immediately. Rookies are thrown to the feeding frenzy of a few, violent regular season games straight away. And they're cheap: if they don't immediately perform or they get injured, they're pushed to the side by the pipeline of more young talent next year - the cheapness of rookie contracts and the non-guaranteed nature of the large part of NFL contracts makes this cost effective. And even in baseball, tanking doesn't always work. As a fan of the losingest team in history (Phillies) with TEN years since the last playoff run I can attest to that.

Basketball is slightly more tank-friendly. Squads are small and player potential is much more measurable in actual metrics than in the NFL. The equivalents of Mike Mamula (another Philly reference there) occur in basketball to, especially back in the 1980s and 1990s, and so do high drafted kids who are basically skyscraper high and nothing else (again, as a Philly resident in the 1990s I remember Shawn Bradley - shudder). But in the end the Lakers traded away all their #2 picked players (some of them rather good like Russel and Ingram) and just went superstar duo. It's easier when you have squads of 12.

It's stupid to want to lose games in the NFL for the sake of a few draft spots. Those few draft spots make little difference in the end, while winning helps, even if the players and coaches who won are elsewhere next year. Basically: you are less of a joke. The Jets have earned a measure of respect for playing hard and with pride - they would have been at least 3-12 now but for the idiocy of moron Gregg Williams. They are not a byword for futility like the Lions or the Browns. Their fans like to moan a lot, being entitled New York fans, but ask Lions or Browns fans whether they would have traded all those #1 draft opportunities for those couple of championship games that the Jets went to, even if it meant also witnessing the Butt Fumble.

See the problem with this post is that with the 1st pick you have the choice between Couch and McNabb. Nobody forced Cleveland to take Couch. To take it further you can trade out and get a boat load of picks so someone else can bust on Tim Couch.

Just looking at who went 1st is not quite accurate. But in the Jets case you have one if the best prospects who came out in years. No one was saying that about Tim Couch. This isn't a do I take Couch, Smith or McNabb scenario. You either take Lawrence at 1 or you trade out and get a king's ransom. Win-win. Of course they take the only loser scenario on the board and that's to end up winning a couple of pointless games.

We aren't in the running for the number one pick. The debate at hand is whether or not the victory against the cardinals was a mistake, ie the 8ish vs 15ish draft slots

Do not be fooled by the performances we witnessed in Saturday's win. Do not be fooled if this team jumps up and delivers a whopping to the Seahawks. Enjoy it, yes. But don't be fooled by it.

Akello playing like a real CB? Linemen suddenly holding blocks and protecting the QB? These guys are playing for new contracts. You're going to see effort and flash out of this team you haven't seen for awhile.

But don't be fooled by it. Key members of this squad have underperformed all season. Remember that. Kyle and John will. You should too. Wins are nice. But don't let it deter you from the work that still must be done.

In case you need a reminder, the KC Chiefs are going back to the playoffs and are the odds on favorite to win another Super Bowl.

The 49ers aren't going anywhere.

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Do not be fooled by the performances we witnessed in Saturday's win. Do not be fooled if this team jumps up and delivers a whopping to the Seahawks. Enjoy it, yes. But don't be fooled by it.

Akello playing like a real CB? Linemen suddenly holding blocks and protecting the QB? These guys are playing for new contracts. You're going to see effort and flash out of this team you haven't seen for awhile.

But don't be fooled by it. Key members of this squad have underperformed all season. Remember that. Kyle and John will. You should too. Wins are nice. But don't let it deter you from the work that still must be done.

In case you need a reminder, the KC Chiefs are going back to the playoffs and are the odds on favorite to win another Super Bowl.

The 49ers aren't going anywhere.

Originally posted by billbird2111:
Do not be fooled by the performances we witnessed in Saturday's win. Do not be fooled if this team jumps up and delivers a whopping to the Seahawks. Enjoy it, yes. But don't be fooled by it.

Akello playing like a real CB? Linemen suddenly holding blocks and protecting the QB? These guys are playing for new contracts. You're going to see effort and flash out of this team you haven't seen for awhile.

But don't be fooled by it. Key members of this squad have underperformed all season. Remember that. Kyle and John will. You should too. Wins are nice. But don't let it deter you from the work that still must be done.

In case you need a reminder, the KC Chiefs are going back to the playoffs and are the odds on favorite to win another Super Bowl.

The 49ers aren't going anywhere.

Who has underperformed exactly? LOL Your premise is faulty and biased.

So The Niners taking the Rams and Cardinals down with them?

Originally posted by billbird2111:
Do not be fooled by the performances we witnessed in Saturday's win. Do not be fooled if this team jumps up and delivers a whopping to the Seahawks. Enjoy it, yes. But don't be fooled by it.

Akello playing like a real CB? Linemen suddenly holding blocks and protecting the QB? These guys are playing for new contracts. You're going to see effort and flash out of this team you haven't seen for awhile.

But don't be fooled by it. Key members of this squad have underperformed all season. Remember that. Kyle and John will. You should too. Wins are nice. But don't let it deter you from the work that still must be done.

In case you need a reminder, the KC Chiefs are going back to the playoffs and are the odds on favorite to win another Super Bowl.

The 49ers aren't going anywhere.

That's because the 49er's starters and top back-ups have not played in something like a 100 games combined this season. KC is going back to the playoffs because they have one of the most dynamic offenses in the league and have remained relatively healthy throughout the year. This is a just a lazy and inaccurate comparison. If the 49ers don't lose Bosa, Ford, Jimmy, Kittle, Richburg, Garner, Sherman, Mostert, Coleman and Samuel for all or most of the year, and don't lose K'Wan Williams for several games they are probably right in the mix of post season contention. About the only player who you could argue has under performed in relation to his contract is Armstead whose play has certainly been affected by the loss of Ford and Bosa. If anything the team, especially the defense, as continued to compete for the whole season. Apart from the shellacking they got from the Dolphins where they just didn't look like they were ready to play, I don't think I have seen any quit in this team at all.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
See the problem with this post is that with the 1st pick you have the choice between Couch and McNabb. Nobody forced Cleveland to take Couch. To take it further you can trade out and get a boat load of picks so someone else can bust on Tim Couch.

Just looking at who went 1st is not quite accurate. But in the Jets case you have one if the best prospects who came out in years. No one was saying that about Tim Couch. This isn't a do I take Couch, Smith or McNabb scenario. You either take Lawrence at 1 or you trade out and get a king's ransom. Win-win. Of course they take the only loser scenario on the board and that's to end up winning a couple of pointless games.

Detroit hasn't been picking early since taking Stafford and has at least made the playoffs several times. They actually have a better record than the Jets over the past decade. Still bottom 10 but they have improved. Doubt they'd be that without the 0-16 year and Stafford pick.

My point was that for every Stafford there is a Couch, or even Bradford (OK but not "generational"). The risk of injury or busting out is so high that a few picks up of down in the same year are not statistically significant. Over a course of many years, sure, the #1 pick is more valuable that the #2, and the #7 more than the #15. But in the same year the difference is not so big as to rise above the volatility of draft success or failure.

One final comment. There was a mention that the Jets at #2 are definitely a lose-lose because they could have traded back for a king's ransom if they didn't want Lawrence. But this is a fallacy: a 0-16 Jets (to ensure the #1 pick) would have to pick Lawrence no matter what - the pressure from the NY media if nothing else would have been too immense to take the risk of trading back. So, even if they thought that Darnold is decent and possible to develop they would have to move on. Now, Lawrence may be as good as Aikman or Manning proved to be. I hope so, for his own sake - I like people succeeding. But it is not impossible that he gets injured, busts out or is merely Bradford-like. It's possible. But the Jets at #2 can keep Darnold and trade back for a king's ransom to the panicky teams wishing to get in on the rest of the possible "franchise" QBs. Or they can just (hope to) get a very good player at #2 and improve their team.

This media BS about this being an epic fail just sells ads to sports shows and newspapers. But as sports analysis is weak.

And the bottom line is that we, the sports fans, the buyers of the product, should be happy that teams play hard all the time and don't tank. Would you really be interested in a league where teams throw games, even if it's for picks? It slants the competition: the same teams played hard from Week 1 to 8 and now they're throwing games? Then those opponents drawing them in Week 16 have an advantage over the opponents of Week 5. You really don't want this to happen in your league. You should be thankful everyone is a professional and forget about "generational talents".

I remember the 6-9 49ers knocking off the Broncos in the last game of the 2006 season, keeping them out of the playoffs. In Denver, in the snow. Disaster - we only got to pick Patrick Willis next year.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Sorry, have to disagree. They clearly were not in sync in that first game which I attribute to not having had a typical camp. I don't have the issues with Jimmy that a lot of people do so I will have to disagree on that point. It was tough losing Buckner but if Ford and Bosa are both healthy with the addition of Hyder and Kinlaw that unit is probably still pretty good. Alexander was moved midseason or so which moves Greenlaw into the starting line-up full time which is a plus. Kittle and Samuel were out most of the year and Ayiuk is an upgrade over Pettis and Goodwin and Verrett was better than just about anyone they had there last year. Richburg, Garland Brunskill all out at various times so that they are forced to start Skule at guard. No, I don't think I am the one with their head in the sand,

I never said the DL unit wasn't decent, I said it wasn't a position of supreme strength like it was last year when it dominated opposing offensive lines.

"if Ford and Bosa are both healthy"
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on...? The fact that fans cling onto hope that Ford is going to be healthy is just bizarre and the clearest example of fans just putting on their blinders.

It's nice to focus on the positives and all, but pointing out improvements means nothing. Teams have to get better at every position each year because football teams are constantly declining. For every addition there is subtraction, so you have to look at the bigger overall NET picture. In 2021, we will still be significantly worse than the 2019 team. The only positions I would expect to be better are the WR position, with the LB and TE position being about the same (2021 draft picks notwithstanding). Otherwise, the team is probably worse at every other position.

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Do not be fooled by the performances we witnessed in Saturday's win. Do not be fooled if this team jumps up and delivers a whopping to the Seahawks. Enjoy it, yes. But don't be fooled by it.

Akello playing like a real CB? Linemen suddenly holding blocks and protecting the QB? These guys are playing for new contracts. You're going to see effort and flash out of this team you haven't seen for awhile.

But don't be fooled by it. Key members of this squad have underperformed all season. Remember that. Kyle and John will. You should too. Wins are nice. But don't let it deter you from the work that still must be done.

In case you need a reminder, the KC Chiefs are going back to the playoffs and are the odds on favorite to win another Super Bowl.

The 49ers aren't going anywhere.

Next seasons team will look nothing like this seasons team so I don't exactly know what you are implying. They're most likely going to back to the playoffs and be a super bowl contender. Correct 2020 49ers aren't going anywhere

Originally posted by paulk205:

Originally posted by tjd808185:
See the problem with this post is that with the 1st pick you have the choice between Couch and McNabb. Nobody forced Cleveland to take Couch. To take it further you can trade out and get a boat load of picks so someone else can bust on Tim Couch.

Just looking at who went 1st is not quite accurate. But in the Jets case you have one if the best prospects who came out in years. No one was saying that about Tim Couch. This isn't a do I take Couch, Smith or McNabb scenario. You either take Lawrence at 1 or you trade out and get a king's ransom. Win-win. Of course they take the only loser scenario on the board and that's to end up winning a couple of pointless games.

Detroit hasn't been picking early since taking Stafford and has at least made the playoffs several times. They actually have a better record than the Jets over the past decade. Still bottom 10 but they have improved. Doubt they'd be that without the 0-16 year and Stafford pick.

My point was that for every Stafford there is a Couch, or even Bradford (OK but not "generational"). The risk of injury or busting out is so high that a few picks up of down in the same year are not statistically significant. Over a course of many years, sure, the #1 pick is more valuable that the #2, and the #7 more than the #15. But in the same year the difference is not so big as to rise above the volatility of draft success or failure.

One final comment. There was a mention that the Jets at #2 are definitely a lose-lose because they could have traded back for a king's ransom if they didn't want Lawrence. But this is a fallacy: a 0-16 Jets (to ensure the #1 pick) would have to pick Lawrence no matter what - the pressure from the NY media if nothing else would have been too immense to take the risk of trading back. So, even if they thought that Darnold is decent and possible to develop they would have to move on. Now, Lawrence may be as good as Aikman or Manning proved to be. I hope so, for his own sake - I like people succeeding. But it is not impossible that he gets injured, busts out or is merely Bradford-like. It's possible. But the Jets at #2 can keep Darnold and trade back for a king's ransom to the panicky teams wishing to get in on the rest of the possible "franchise" QBs. Or they can just (hope to) get a very good player at #2 and improve their team.

This media BS about this being an epic fail just sells ads to sports shows and newspapers. But as sports analysis is weak.

And the bottom line is that we, the sports fans, the buyers of the product, should be happy that teams play hard all the time and don't tank. Would you really be interested in a league where teams throw games, even if it's for picks? It slants the competition: the same teams played hard from Week 1 to 8 and now they're throwing games? Then those opponents drawing them in Week 16 have an advantage over the opponents of Week 5. You really don't want this to happen in your league. You should be thankful everyone is a professional and forget about "generational talents".

I remember the 6-9 49ers knocking off the Broncos in the last game of the 2006 season, keeping them out of the playoffs. In Denver, in the snow. Disaster - we only got to pick Patrick Willis next year.

The system definitely incentivizes teams to tank once the probability of getting to the playoffs gets functionally impossible with the hard set draft order. However, if the nfl moved to the probability based drafting system ala nba, I think we'd give teams a reason the keep playing hard even if they're not gonna make the playoffs, without having to appeal purely to their sense of competition