In some, or perhaps many cases, it is flat out wrong to label others as not being fans. 'Saying there is no good in losing more' is another matter.
There is zero certainty losing will result in Garrett being fired in the short-term. Additionally, Garrett's firing due to losing does not carry a certainty that his replacement will achieve better results than him. The possibility exists his replacement (and he will be replaced eventually/all coaches' terms end one way or another) will be much better than him, just like him, or worse than him.
Likewise, the team's final record does not assure improvement in attaining overall roster talent during the offseason. Possibilities include the front office hitting the jackpot on every free agent signing and netting an A+ draft grade. Unfortunately, the chances of landing similar disappointing free agents and missing on draft picks are equally possible.
The whole argument of losing in any (team) sport or any have, will, and shall always carry the same probabilities. There are too many variable to assume losing will automatically make the team better. Is it a hoped for expectation? Yes. Is it a fallacy by definition? Also yes. The latter makes the disagreement in opinion over the desire to lose more contentious in nature. Guarantees or even tangible likely outcomes would make for a more encompassing consensus but how does one voice them in provable context? I do not have an answer. I have certainly not seen them inserted into discussions such as these. Hopeful (sometimes boa****l) proclamations? Yes. Confirmable forecasts of future success? No.
Drafting earlier gives one more options. Earlier players on the board are available. If your scouting is competent, you will get a higher rated player.
If your scouting is competent, drafting earlier will get you better players. If you are incompetent, you will need to replace the incompetent. Since 2016 draft went very well, I would say the scouting department is competent, though Marinelli/Garrett may have hurt the 2017 draft with their insistence in drafting for marinelli's obsolete scheme.
Is there certainty in any draft, of course not. However an earlier slot is obviously in a more advantageous position. To argue otherwise is not intellectually honest. What kind of joke would it be for a team to trade an earlier draft position for a later one. How ridiculous.
Instead this seems more like an argument about the integrity of the game. The simple answer is - what integrity? Goodell? Surely you jest.
Besides football and basketball, tanking is now practiced in MLB also where drafting yields players far later than football. But yet the latest craze is tanking, as successfully demonstrated by the Cubs and the Astros - the last 2 world series champions. Learning from the early success, Yankees, Phillies and White Sox have recently tanked. The Yankees' tanking was short but the results are already coming in amazingly.
Tanking strategies are relatively new but provide good value like data based strategies. Clinging to romantic notions of the integrity of the game is like clinging to Marinelli's obsolete defensive schemes.