This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23785
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
x 8

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Demi »

Look at the consistent winners in the NFL. They all build from the bottom of the draft.
Because they already have a base in place. Usually a QB. Coach. And front office. And they're picking at the bottom because they win, they aren't winning because they're picking at the bottom.
The only crock here is the theory that tanking benefits anyone. It doesn't work in any sport.
Not even sure how many clear examples there are of a team tanking in any sport. Current 76ers I guess? Was talk about the Colts tanking the year they got Luck....guess jury still out on the result of that one if it was the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying they have Teddy throw the ball to the other team and the offense let them return it. I'm just saying I'd feel better about the teams future if at the end of the day sunday they lose. Just like that Redskins game that meant the difference between the RGIII trade, and Kalil....
DK Sweets
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2908
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 am
Location: Missouri

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by DK Sweets »

Demi wrote: Part of the reason they're currently fighting for the division is high picks in Suh, Johnson, Stafford, heck even Ansah.

Imagine if they hadn't hired an incompetent GM and had those picks. Between trades, and first shot at players, yeah in a lost year I'd take 2 wins over 6 every time. And IMO it's better for the team! We need talent. Big time. I want a crack at that elite top 5 receiver. Or whatever might be the once in a decade talent if there is one!
Like a once in a generation LT in the Top 5 picks! Like Kalil!
Purpnation
Franchise Player
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Purpnation »

Demi wrote: Because they already have a base in place. Usually a QB. Coach. And front office. And they're picking at the bottom because they win, they aren't winning because they're picking at the bottom.
Not even sure how many clear examples there are of a team tanking in any sport. Current 76ers I guess? Was talk about the Colts tanking the year they got Luck....guess jury still out on the result of that one if it was the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying they have Teddy throw the ball to the other team and the offense let them return it. I'm just saying I'd feel better about the teams future if at the end of the day sunday they lose. Just like that Redskins game that meant the difference between the RGIII trade, and Kalil....
The idea that the 2011 Colts purposely tanked is asinine and ridiculous.
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by PurpleMustReign »

Last year it was "Tank for Teddy"... so we didn't tank, and we still got Teddy... and people are upset. What happens if we tank and Mariota decides to stay in Oregon? Or breaks his arm and can never throw again?

Come on Demi. We know you aren't happy with the direction of the team, or the recent performance. But tanking isn't the answer.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11583
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California
x 5

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by jackal »

Teddy can be very good starter for a decade i think

Peyton Manning, Rodgers, and Troy Aikman all started out taking there lumps

I think teddy has done very well given our swiss cheese OL and moderate wide outs..
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Mothman »

Demi wrote: Because they already have a base in place. Usually a QB. Coach. And front office. And they're picking at the bottom because they win, they aren't winning because they're picking at the bottom.
Not even sure how many clear examples there are of a team tanking in any sport. Current 76ers I guess? Was talk about the Colts tanking the year they got Luck....guess jury still out on the result of that one if it was the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying they have Teddy throw the ball to the other team and the offense let them return it. I'm just saying I'd feel better about the teams future if at the end of the day sunday they lose. Just like that Redskins game that meant the difference between the RGIII trade, and Kalil....
Yes, and where are the Rams now? At 4-7, just like the Vikings.

If consistent winners are built from the bottom of the draft because "they already have a base in place. Usually a QB. Coach. And front office." isn't that a reason to root for the Vikings to win, not lose? If they finished strong, maybe that would be an indication that they do have the right coach, QB and front office in place, are actually building effectively toward something and just need more time to get there.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9772
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1857

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

Demi wrote:Was talk about the Colts tanking the year they got Luck....guess jury still out on the result of that one if it was the case.

Anyway, I'm not saying they have Teddy throw the ball to the other team and the offense let them return it. I'm just saying I'd feel better about the teams future if at the end of the day sunday they lose. Just like that Redskins game that meant the difference between the RGIII trade, and Kalil....
The Colts were a 10-win team the year before they went 2-14, so they had a solid roster to begin with.

Based on his rookie season, Kalil was actually a very solid draft pick. NOBODY could have predicted he would crash the way he has. And are you actually saying you'd want RGIII? Justin Blackmon? Morris Claiborne? Trent Richardson? Not me.

The NFL draft is a huge crapshoot. The truth is, almost nobody from the first round of the 2012 draft has panned out. In fact, speculation is that Andrew Luck, Luke Kuechly, and maybe Ryan Tannehill will be the only top-10 picks from 2012 to receive contract extensions. That's pretty horrible.

The other example tanking proponents like to use is Tim Duncan, who supposedly turned the Spurs into an instant winner. But they like to overlook the fact that the Spurs won 59 games the year before sinking to the bottom of the NBA, when they played the entire season without an injured David Robinson.

It's simply unwise to lose games just to move up.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
Purple bruise
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Purple bruise »

J. Kapp 11 wrote: The Colts were a 10-win team the year before they went 2-14, so they had a solid roster to begin with.

Based on his rookie season, Kalil was actually a very solid draft pick. NOBODY could have predicted he would crash the way he has. And are you actually saying you'd want RGIII? Justin Blackmon? Morris Claiborne? Trent Richardson? Not me.

The NFL draft is a huge crapshoot. The truth is, almost nobody from the first round of the 2012 draft has panned out. In fact, speculation is that Andrew Luck, Luke Kuechly, and maybe Ryan Tannehill will be the only top-10 picks from 2012 to receive contract extensions. That's pretty horrible.

The other example tanking proponents like to use is Tim Duncan, who supposedly turned the Spurs into an instant winner. But they like to overlook the fact that the Spurs won 59 games the year before sinking to the bottom of the NBA, when they played the entire season without an injured David Robinson.

It's simply unwise to lose games just to move up.
My exact thoughts, great post Kapp :rock:
Do not mistake KINDNESS for WEAKNESS!


Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

Purple bruise wrote: My exact thoughts, great post Kapp :rock:
Just about to say the same Kapp. Nice post
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23785
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
x 8

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Demi »

And are you actually saying you'd want RGIII? Justin Blackmon? Morris Claiborne? Trent Richardson? Not me.
No. But I would have loved to have lost that Redskins game. And ended up with a 2012 1st, 2012 2nd, 2013 1st, and 2014 1st like the Rams did with that earlier pick!

You can look back and point out all the cases were it wouldn't have mattered, or was a positive. But you have to also consider if the Colts won a game or two more, and ended up with anyone other than Luck. What are the chances they've had the success they've had the last couple years? Or the bright future they have? If the Vikings had won a game or two more leading up to the 2007 draft, and instead of AD, took Ted Ginn Jr. or Amobi Okoye.

And when it comes to a front office like the one we have. I'll take my chances on a higher pick even more often. The flexibility of possible trades, along with having first pick at any number of players has no value? Since we love hindsight, I'll go ahead and take losing that Redskins game and making a 1/2/1/1 trade for that 2nd overall pick over winning it and ending up with Matt Kalil.

And once again, I'm not talking about starting Ponder, or doing anything other than trying to win the games. I'm just saying at the end of the day, I'm just as happy with a loss as I am with a win. If we had a realistic shot at a wild card spot, fine. We don't. So if we lose to the Panthers, I feel better moving on than if we beat them. That doesn't mean I want the coaches to tell the players to lay down and give them the win...
808vikingsfan
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3927
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:45 pm
Location: Hawaii
x 151

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by 808vikingsfan »

DT Star Lotulelei (ankle) and OL Amini Silatolu (knee) are OUT for tomorrow's game. #CARvsMIN
Joined: Aug 2006
Deleted: Sept 12 2014
Reborn: Sept 17 2014
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9772
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1857

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

Here's something else to think about.

The best Vikings draft picks over the past five years have been guys like Harrison Smith, Sharif Floyd, Xavier Rhodes, Everson Griffen, CP, Josh Robinson, etc. None taken in the top 20. Of our top-10 picks, only Anthony Barr is really making an impact.

Impact players can be found at any level. Picking at the top of the draft doesn't guarantee anything. The main thing it does is give you a better chance at getting the player you want. But it doesn't mean that player will end up being better than someone chosen a few spots after him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
Demi
Commissioner
Posts: 23785
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
x 8

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Demi »

But it doesn't mean that player will end up being better than someone chosen a few spots after him.
I can think of plenty of examples of players who wouldn't have been available if the team had been picking later.

I can't think of a single example of a player a team took who wouldn't have been available at an earlier pick.

:wink:
saint33
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:28 am

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by saint33 »

J. Kapp 11 wrote: The Colts were a 10-win team the year before they went 2-14, so they had a solid roster to begin with.

Based on his rookie season, Kalil was actually a very solid draft pick. NOBODY could have predicted he would crash the way he has. And are you actually saying you'd want RGIII? Justin Blackmon? Morris Claiborne? Trent Richardson? Not me.

The NFL draft is a huge crapshoot. The truth is, almost nobody from the first round of the 2012 draft has panned out. In fact, speculation is that Andrew Luck, Luke Kuechly, and maybe Ryan Tannehill will be the only top-10 picks from 2012 to receive contract extensions. That's pretty horrible.

The other example tanking proponents like to use is Tim Duncan, who supposedly turned the Spurs into an instant winner. But they like to overlook the fact that the Spurs won 59 games the year before sinking to the bottom of the NBA, when they played the entire season without an injured David Robinson.

It's simply unwise to lose games just to move up.
First of all, I believe Demi was referring to the RG3 trade that netted the Rams a boatload of picks over a few years, not actually drafted RG3 himself. I think anyone in their right mind would have to be crazy to suggest that winning that meaningless game in Washington and drafting Kalil was as beneficial as losing that game would have been with the package of draft picks we could/would have gotten in return for the 2nd overall pick.

Anyways my personal opinion on "tanking" is that it's really just a stupid fan driven discussion, because no NFL team would ever truly consider tanking for a draft pick. And some of your points may be brought up for reasons why a team wouldn't do so, but ultimately it's because the players and coaches whom would have to do the tanking would likely lose their jobs in doing so, so even if it were good for the franchise, it would not benefit the people who actually have control over the situation.

But from a fan perspective, I'm pretty much on the fence. I feel like there's merit to both sides, but IMO a bit more logic actually towards the tanking side.

I mean if you really look critically at the arguments against tanking, you have:

1. The short term emotional high vs. low of winning games on a weekly basis in a lost season. Emotionally, I totally agree with this argument, I never like to see the Vikings lose. But in the big picture, whether we win or lose these games means nothing, and any negative feelings we have after a loss will be long forgotten by the time the next season starts or even the draft comes around.

2. The draft is a crapshoot and no one player is guaranteed to pan out, so draft position doesn't really matter, as often times better players can be found later in the draft. A fair enough point, but this point really doesn't prove that "tanking" is a bad outcome, it just points out that "tanking" is not a guaranteed strategy at accomplishing success on the field. But on the other side of things, what does winning meaningless games accomplish? It certainly doesn't guarantee future success either, and the only thing it accomplishes is a worse draft position. Which then goes back to the argument that while a higher draft pick certainly doesn't guarantee a better player, it still is better for a team to have one because it gives that team a large pool of candidates to choose from. As demi points out, there are probably many cases where a team would have missed out on a player by moving down from their draft position, but there are no cases where a team with a higher draft pick didn't have the option of drafting a player that was taken at a lower draft pick. Ultimately a team's success in the draft will have more to do with their ability to scout players then their draft position, but having more options on the table at each draft pick is always better than having less.

And I think your example of how the 2012 draft panned out is a perfect example of how "tanking" does have merit. The difference between drafting Andrew Luck or receiving what the Rams did in compensation for RG3 vs. ending up with Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne or Blackmon was at most a couple wins. Again, if you had the choice of what we got, or a few more loses that season and Andrew Luck, would you really choose the wins + Kalil? I highly doubt that.

And finally, as for the talent of the Colts roster, I don't really agree that it was a roster that was talented without Luck. Yes the Colts won 10 game the year before going 2-14, but they had Peyton Manning, and I don't think I really need to argue the value of having Manning on your team. The true level of talent on that roster beyond Manning was exposed when they went 2-14, and the entire organization was rebuilt after that season. Beyond just Manning, the front office was replaced, the coaching staff was replaced, and basically the entire roster was overhauled beyond a few mainstays (Robert Mathis and Reggie Wayne were really the only players to ultimately survive the roster overhaul). Having the first overall pick, allowing them to draft a once in a generation talent at QB played a huge role in their turn around.
Image
User avatar
Mothman
Defensive Tackle
Posts: 38292
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 409

Re: This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Carolina Panthers

Post by Mothman »

saint33 wrote:First of all, I believe Demi was referring to the RG3 trade that netted the Rams a boatload of picks over a few years, not actually drafted RG3 himself. I think anyone in their right mind would have to be crazy to suggest that winning that meaningless game in Washington and drafting Kalil was as beneficial as losing that game would have been with the package of draft picks we could/would have gotten in return for the 2nd overall pick.

Anyways my personal opinion on "tanking" is that it's really just a stupid fan driven discussion, because no NFL team would ever truly consider tanking for a draft pick. And some of your points may be brought up for reasons why a team wouldn't do so, but ultimately it's because the players and coaches whom would have to do the tanking would likely lose their jobs in doing so, so even if it were good for the franchise, it would not benefit the people who actually have control over the situation.

But from a fan perspective, I'm pretty much on the fence. I feel like there's merit to both sides, but IMO a bit more logic actually towards the tanking side.

I mean if you really look critically at the arguments against tanking, you have:

1. The short term emotional high vs. low of winning games on a weekly basis in a lost season. Emotionally, I totally agree with this argument, I never like to see the Vikings lose. But in the big picture, whether we win or lose these games means nothing, and any negative feelings we have after a loss will be long forgotten by the time the next season starts or even the draft comes around.

2. The draft is a crapshoot and no one player is guaranteed to pan out, so draft position doesn't really matter, as often times better players can be found later in the draft. A fair enough point, but this point really doesn't prove that "tanking" is a bad outcome, it just points out that "tanking" is not a guaranteed strategy at accomplishing success on the field. But on the other side of things, what does winning meaningless games accomplish? It certainly doesn't guarantee future success either, and the only thing it accomplishes is a worse draft position. Which then goes back to the argument that while a higher draft pick certainly doesn't guarantee a better player, it still is better for a team to have one because it gives that team a large pool of candidates to choose from. As demi points out, there are probably many cases where a team would have missed out on a player by moving down from their draft position, but there are no cases where a team with a higher draft pick didn't have the option of drafting a player that was taken at a lower draft pick. Ultimately a team's success in the draft will have more to do with their ability to scout players then their draft position, but having more options on the table at each draft pick is always better than having less.

And I think your example of how the 2012 draft panned out is a perfect example of how "tanking" does have merit. The difference between drafting Andrew Luck or receiving what the Rams did in compensation for RG3 vs. ending up with Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne or Blackmon was at most a couple wins. Again, if you had the choice of what we got, or a few more loses that season and Andrew Luck, would you really choose the wins + Kalil? I highly doubt that.

And finally, as for the talent of the Colts roster, I don't really agree that it was a roster that was talented without Luck. Yes the Colts won 10 game the year before going 2-14, but they had Peyton Manning, and I don't think I really need to argue the value of having Manning on your team. The true level of talent on that roster beyond Manning was exposed when they went 2-14, and the entire organization was rebuilt after that season.


That gets said over and over again but I think very few fans actually look beyond the Manning injury to why that team lost so many games that year. First, they where inadequately prepared with a quality backup QB. That was a talent issue. However, they were devastated by injuries that season. Manning was the tip of the iceberg, far from the sole reason they struggled to so much. He was undeniably the biggest loss and the difference-maker on the team but not the sole reason they "earned" the first pick in the draft.

That's my take anyway but since this is a Vikes message board, not a Colts message board, I'll get back to the idea of tanking:

The potential benefits of having higher draft picks are obvious but I think the biggest drawback to tanking, by far, is the "poison pill" it injects into the team. It's not the negative impact of losing games that is problematic because, as you said, negative feelings after a loss will be forgotten before next season. It's the message that gets sent to the players about the importance of their effort. It's the loss of respect for teammates and coaches who are willing to tank games just for draft position. I think a coach who did that would lose the respect of many of his players. Players who were willing tank would probably lose the respect of many of their teammates and I think some of those teammates, players with integrity, might even ask to be traded. That kind of damage would be much harder to repair, if it wasn't simply irreparable. A coach needs the respect of his players and players need to play hard. They should always be shown that winning and a sincere effort are what they are striving to achieve. Integrity matters. We're talking about a team of human beings here, not an abstraction or coding in a video game. Tanking is likely to have a much deeper impact than simply affecting a team's W/L record and altering draft position. It's a very bad idea.
Post Reply