Tanking would have been the right strategy

[Jake]

I'd love to give Jerry and Stephen the number one overall pick for the next 3 seasons, just so people can stop deluding themselves with the tanking excuse.

It's not the timing of the pick, it's the clowns in charge of the picking.

 

[Pantone282C]

Cost us Patrick Peterson.

Okay, I'll buy that. Still, not sure he would have been used very well. I don't put it past the FO to screw up player's success with hairball schemes.

 

[kskboys]

And all of his championship rings..

Oh, we're now using championships as the sole judgment tool? Man, may as well quit drafting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kskboys]

Okay, I'll buy that. Still, not sure he would have been used very well. I don't put it past the FO to screw up player's success with hairball schemes.

Oh, no doubt. Resources must be well used and we have sucked royally at that. However, McC has been given more leeway to pick the groceries, so there is some hope that it will improve.

I do see huge holes in the counter argument that we won't use the high picks well anyway. Picks closer to the front give you more good players to choose from. They are desired, hands down.

 

[kskboys]

I'd love to give Jerry and Stephen the number one overall pick for the next 3 seasons, just so people can stop deluding themselves with the tanking excuse.

It's not the timing of the pick, it's the clowns in charge of the picking.

Where you pick matters. Even if our buffoon screws it up, that does not follow that it doesn't matter.

 

[Pantone282C]

Oh, no doubt. Resources must be well used and we have sucked royally at that. However, McC has been given more leeway to pick the groceries, so there is some hope that it will improve.

I do see huge holes in the counter argument that we won't use the high picks well anyway. Picks closer to the front give you more good players to choose from. They are desired, hands down.

Fair enough.

 

[kskboys]

Winning fixes a host of ills. It instills confidence, builds teamwork, and provides better focus on performance. I never played on a team that did not want to win.

Of course. And to win, you need the right pieces. And better pieces are available to you the more toward the front of the draft you pick.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Sure he did. He pulled Romo in week 16 of 2011. Romo hurt his hand on the first drive but the team had already discussed who would play and sit if the Giants ended up winning their earlier game, which they did. The week 16 game turned into a preseason game for all intents and purposes and the goal no longer was to win but to remain healthy for the week 17 showdown with the Giants. Not trying your best to win = tanking according to this board.

We also tanked in Week 17 of 2016 sitting a lot of our starters for the majority of games.

Equating sitting for health reasons = "tanking" is a stretch even for you.

Wasn't done with the intent to lose. Inability to discern the difference to support your agenda.

 

[Aviano90]

Equating sitting for health reasons = "tanking" is a stretch even for you.

Wasn't done with the intent to lose. Inability to discern the difference to support your agenda.

Oh shut up. I am doing the same thing your side is doing. You play to win the game, remember?

 

[RonnieT24]

Sure he did. He pulled Romo in week 16 of 2011. Romo hurt his hand on the first drive but the team had already discussed who would play and sit if the Giants ended up winning their earlier game, which they did. The week 16 game turned into a preseason game for all intents and purposes and the goal no longer was to win but to remain healthy for the week 17 showdown with the Giants. Not trying your best to win = tanking according to this board.

We also tanked in Week 17 of 2016 sitting a lot of our starters for the majority of games.

Sorry man but sitting a player to protect him from injury because you have bigger fish to fry the next week either in the form of an actual playoff game or a de facto playoff game as was coming up with the Giants in 2011 is not tanking. Sitting a player to enhance your chances of LOSING is tanking so that you can have better draft pick when you have nothing else to play for coming up is tanking. In 2011 we had nothing to lose by losing that Philly game nor did we have anything to gain by winning it. Same in 2016 as the loss cost us nothing and winning it would have gained us nothing. You have to play to LOSE because the loss benefits you somehow to be tanking. I guess it all boils down to the timeframes. If you sacrifice a game or games THIS season because you believe it benefits you next YEAR then you are tanking. If you sacrifice a game because you've already clinched and you need to get healed up for next WEEK then you are simply being smart. I suppose it's a fine line but not hard to discern for me. YMMV.

 

[Aviano90]

Sorry man but sitting a player to protect him from injury because you have bigger fish to fry the next week either in the form of an actual playoff game or a de facto playoff game as was coming up with the Giants in 2011 is not tanking. Sitting a player to enhance your chances of LOSING is tanking so that you can have better draft pick when you have nothing else to play for coming up is tanking. In 2011 we had nothing to lose by losing that Philly game nor did we have anything to gain by winning it. Same in 2016 as the loss cost us nothing and winning it would have gained us nothing. You have to play to LOSE because the loss benefits you somehow to be tanking. I guess it all boils down to the timeframes. If you sacrifice a game or games THIS season because you believe it benefits you next YEAR then you are tanking. If you sacrifice a game because you've already clinched and you need to get healed up for next WEEK then you are simply being smart. I suppose it's a fine line but not hard to discern for me. YMMV.

If anti-tankers can't be rational in their arguments, we shouldn't have to be either. Let's make it cut and dry, you either do your best to play to win the game or you don't.

 

[RonnieT24]

If anti-tankers can't be rational in their arguments, we shouldn't have to be either. Let's make it cut and dry, you either do your best to play to win the game or you don't.

But it's never cut and dried. Every situation is different. I suppose it all comes down to risk vs reward. In the playoff preparation scenario you weigh the risk of injury against the "reward" of winning a game at the end of the season. Having an injury derail your playoff run before it even gets started is a HUGE risk. And there truly is no reward for having taken said risk. Meanwhile winning games late in a lost season such as this last one costs you draft positioning. I acknowledge that is not a zero cost but it's nothing compared to Emmitt pulling his hammie in the last game of the '94 season or was it the next to last? That pretty much ended our chances for a threepeat right then and there. When a team is still in the playoff race then any action that reduces their chances at the playoffs is outright tanking and unacceptable. If the Eagles had run out to a 9-2 start before the trade deadline while we were sitting at 3-8 I would have had no issue with the Cowboys trading some guys for picks and/or shutting down banged up guys down the stretch and let's have a look at the youngsters. But since the division was literally never out of reach until week 17 there was no rationale for tanking. IMHO of course.

 

[Aviano90]

But it's never cut and dried. Every situation is different. I suppose it all comes down to risk vs reward. In the playoff preparation scenario you weigh the risk of injury against the "reward" of winning a game at the end of the season. Having an injury derail your playoff run before it even gets started is a HUGE risk. And there truly is no reward for having taken said risk. Meanwhile winning games late in a lost season such as this last one costs you draft positioning. I acknowledge that is not a zero cost but it's nothing compared to Emmitt pulling his hammie in the last game of the '94 season or was it the next to last? That pretty much ended our chances for a threepeat right then and there. When a team is still in the playoff race then any action that reduces their chances at the playoffs is outright tanking and unacceptable. If the Eagles had run out to a 9-2 start before the trade deadline while we were sitting at 3-8 I would have had no issue with the Cowboys trading some guys for picks and/or shutting down banged up guys down the stretch and let's have a look at the youngsters. But since the division was literally never out of reach until week 17 there was no rationale for tanking. IMHO of course.

I agree. I wish the anti-tankers could also agree and take a step back from their hard line approach when discussing tanking. "Tanking" doesn't necessarily mean losing on purpose. But they seem to only be willing to be rational when a hard line approach is taken against their stance.

 

[RonnieT24]

I agree. I wish the anti-tankers could also agree and take a step back from their hard line approach when discussing tanking. "Tanking" doesn't necessarily mean losing on purpose. But they seem to only be willing to be rational when a hard line approach is taken against their stance.

Well reasonable people should be able to agree to disagree.. but since when have people on the internet been accused of being reasonable. I am certainly one who believes that "Tanking" is defined as losing on purpose but that's really just about how one defines the word. It really boils down to not giving your all trying to win when there are tangible benefits available RIGHT NOW for doing so. When there is nothing to gain or lose now or for the future then it's not tanking.. It's just taking a different approach. If you have clinched you are trying to avoid injury screwing up your playoff run. If you are out of the playoffs then you are also trying to avoid injury to key players AND gaining experience for your youngsters. In neither case are you "trying to lose" if you sit guys. You are simply doing the risk/reward analysis and assessing the value based on what's best for your franchise. There is certainly a good argument that a top 5 pick is better for the franchise than a top 10 pick. In fact it's not really an argument at all. However if the Cowboys beat the Giants and Philly DOESN'T tank and beats the WFTs, the value of getting into the tournament would outweigh the 5 draft spots TO ME. It's fine if folks don't agree.. but that's how I see it.

 

[Pantone282C]

Of course. And to win, you need the right pieces. And better pieces are available to you the more toward the front of the draft you pick.

Usually. But, if this is about tanking, I'm not in favor.

 

[Aviano90]

Well reasonable people should be able to agree to disagree.. but since when have people on the internet been accused of being reasonable. I am certainly one who believes that "Tanking" is defined as losing on purpose but that's really just about how one defines the word. It really boils down to not giving your all trying to win when there are tangible benefits available RIGHT NOW for doing so. When there is nothing to gain or lose now or for the future then it's not tanking.. It's just taking a different approach. If you have clinched you are trying to avoid injury screwing up your playoff run. If you are out of the playoffs then you are also trying to avoid injury to key players AND gaining experience for your youngsters. In neither case are you "trying to lose" if you sit guys. You are simply doing the risk/reward analysis and assessing the value based on what's best for your franchise. There is certainly a good argument that a top 5 pick is better for the franchise than a top 10 pick. In fact it's not really an argument at all. However if the Cowboys beat the Giants and Philly DOESN'T tank and beats the WFTs, the value of getting into the tournament would outweigh the 5 draft spots TO ME. It's fine if folks don't agree.. but that's how I see it.

Well, there have been other suggestions like potentially trading players you don't intend to resign, or giving other players developmental opportunities, or using Pollard more to save wear and tear on Zeke. There is a middle ground other than telling your players to go out and lose on purpose.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Oh shut up. I am doing the same thing your side is doing. You play to win the game, remember?

"my side". Dude...I'm a black sheep here!

Nobody wants ME on their side!


In all honesty....I oppose "tanking" both in my nature and for phantom fairy dust draft picks.

I also truly understand the fact that higher draft picks are more desirable than lower draft picks. However....It doesn't mean they are "good" picks or guaranteed. Lotta GREAT players come in lower picks and rounds.

So that's where I stand....that is my "side". Others speak for themselves.

 

[Aviano90]

"my side". Dude...I'm a black sheep here!

Nobody wants ME on their side!


In all honesty....I oppose "tanking" both in my nature and for phantom fairy dust draft picks.

I also truly understand the fact that higher draft picks are more desirable than lower draft picks. However....It doesn't mean they are "good" picks or guaranteed. Lotta GREAT players come in lower picks and rounds.

So that's where I stand....that is my "side". Others speak for themselves.

What's your definition of "tanking"? Maybe that will help clear some things up.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I'd love to give Jerry and Stephen the number one overall pick for the next 3 seasons, just so people can stop deluding themselves with the tanking excuse.

It's not the timing of the pick, it's the clowns in charge of the picking.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

What's your definition of "tanking"? Maybe that will help clear some things ups.

Players and plays with the intent to lose the football game.

Subbing to keep players healthy is NOT tanking.

Is that clear enough?