It doesn't make any difference what Demi was referring to. Nobody lost on purpose. Nobody in the Rams front office said, "Yes! Our crappy record gets us more draft picks!"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.
And I just love the Monday morning quarterbacking. Two years ago, when Matt Kalil was suiting up for the Pro Bowl, nobody was thinking, "I wish we wouldn't have drafted this bum." It's really easy to say I told you so now. Two years ago, we appeared to be set at LT for the next decade.
I'm pretty sure I said that.saint33 wrote: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.
Look, most guys on an NFL roster don't have guaranteed spots for the next season. They're playing to stay on the team. So they're not going to play at less than full speed. Also, they're far more susceptible to injury if they're loafing. Add in the reasons you mention, and it's just not going to happen.
From a fan perspective, I'm a realist. If New England, Green Bay, Denver, et. al., can win from the bottom of the draft, so can we.