Vita Vea visits

[America's Cowboy]

Then Payne would be a wasted pick, he is 6.2 and 311, he would hammered playing as a NT in a 3 man front, Payne is better suited to playing as the DT in a 4 man front, I still dont see the Skins grabbing a NT in the first they need help more at DB & LB that does not mean they wont draft a DT but they can grab someone like Settle in the 3rd who is 330 to play as a NT

Commanders are now running a 3-4 on defense? I thought they were running a 4-3?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never claimed they did? Why is this being mentioned?



Again, who claimed that they did? Where are we going here?



I wanted the Cowboys to try to lose because it was in the best interests of the team long term. Garrett is, and should be, a non-factor in that equation. The problem is, that he's not excluded from the equation.

I have been asking you for examples of tanking working ie turning a team around to playoff success and you gave me examples of teams that didn't try to lose ie tank.

I'm using your words to point out that if your "best interest" is indeed playoff success then even though you get better draft slots, tanking doesn't get you where you want to go and it really never has.

The only time I have ever seen it work is when you completely blowup the team a la what Jerry and Jimmy did when first taking over the team.

The mechanics of why this is are not so easy to understand but they are discernable. Football players have to train harder than in any other sport.

QB and kickers are exceptions but you just don't see skinny armed athletes like Kevin Durant of the NBA playing at that type of level in the NFL.

The game itself is much more physically demanding. There is no analog in team sports to the feats of strength on display as interior linemen compete. There is no analog to the collisions between defenders and ball carriers.

In order to compete players have to buy into a program and tain their ***** off. Once you stop trying to do everything within your power to win then it is simply human nature for the players to do the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander is the cliche that encapsulates the sentiment. They start taking reps off. The stop coming to voluntary activities. The take less time studying film. They don't give their all in practice. They start taking plays off in games.

What you end up with is what you see in moribund franchises like the Jets, Browns, Bucs and the like. They struggle to develop players, their players underperform on gamedays with repeated mistakes and evidence of physical inferiority.

I know you would be all on board for blowing the team up and replacing the coaching staff. You level of despair is to that point but we are not blowing up the team this year and doing it anyway literally just wastes the year even more than you already think it is.

Tanking does not propel an existing program to post season success. It never has and never will as the sport is currently constructed.

 

[Leedscowboy]

Commanders are now running a 3-4 on defense? I thought they were running a 4-3?

They have been a 3-4 since Haynesworth was around, thats why I think the Skins 3 targets are LB Roquan Smith, S Derwin James and CB Denzel Ward.

 

[Stash]

I have been asking you for examples of tanking working ie turning a team around to playoff success and you gave me examples of teams that didn't try to lose ie tank.

And you give me nothing to the questions posed to you. Absolutely nothing. You try to demand answers but give none yourself.

I'm using your words to point out that if your "best interest" is indeed playoff success then even though you get better draft slots, tanking doesn't get you where you want to go and it really never has.

And "playoff success" includes actually qualifying for the playoffs. You can't have "success" if you're not even there.

The only time I have ever seen it work is when you completely blowup the team a la what Jerry and Jimmy did when first taking over the team.

The mechanics of why this is are not so easy to understand but they are discernable. Football players have to train harder than in any other sport.

QB and kickers are exceptions but you just don't see skinny armed athletes like Kevin Durant of the NBA playing at that type of level in the NFL.

The game itself is much more physically demanding. There is no analog in team sports to the feats of strength on display as interior linemen compete. There is no analog to the collisions between defenders and ball carriers.

In order to compete players have to buy into a program and tain their ***** off. Once you stop trying to do everything within your power to win then it is simply human nature for the players to do the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander is the cliche that encapsulates the sentiment. They start taking reps off. The stop coming to voluntary activities. The take less time studying film. They don't give their all in practice. They start taking plays off in games.

You appear to be confusing not playing your starters or coaches going all out to win meaningless games as telling your players to stop working or throw the game. And they're two completely different things. I didn't see the Eagles players "quit" on the season when their coaches pulled them in a meaningless week 17 game.

What you end up with is what you see in moribund franchises like the Jets, Browns, Bucs and the like. They struggle to develop players, their players underperform on gamedays with repeated mistakes and evidence of physical inferiority.

Again, who's won a championship more recently, "moribund franchises" like the Bucs and the Colts that you've since omitted, or the Dallas Cowboys? If they're "moribund", we're now worse. Somehow, despite all of the "win, win, win" mantras you're claiming somehow breed success?

I know you would be all on board for blowing the team up and replacing the coaching staff. You level of despair is to that point but we are not blowing up the team this year and doing it anyway literally just wastes the year even more than you already think it is.

A completely unprovable claim.

Tanking does not propel an existing program to post season success. It never has and never will as the sport is currently constructed.

You act like it's a common, admitted practice and give me a few recent examples and expect immediate results. Or short-sightedly think that one player at the top of the draft is supposed to change a team's fortunes overnight.

Again, I'll challenge you to tell me what Garrett's meaningless wins have ever gotten this team? They benefit nobody but him. By letting him continue to sit in a chair he's never earned. But like this entire conversation, I don't expect an answer. You demand them of others but don't supply them yourself.

 

[America's Cowboy]

I have been asking you for examples of tanking working ie turning a team around to playoff success and you gave me examples of teams that didn't try to lose ie tank.

I'm using your words to point out that if your "best interest" is indeed playoff success then even though you get better draft slots, tanking doesn't get you where you want to go and it really never has.

The only time I have ever seen it work is when you completely blowup the team a la what Jerry and Jimmy did when first taking over the team.

The mechanics of why this is are not so easy to understand but they are discernable. Football players have to train harder than in any other sport.

QB and kickers are exceptions but you just don't see skinny armed athletes like Kevin Durant of the NBA playing at that type of level in the NFL.

The game itself is much more physically demanding. There is no analog in team sports to the feats of strength on display as interior linemen compete. There is no analog to the collisions between defenders and ball carriers.

In order to compete players have to buy into a program and tain their ***** off. Once you stop trying to do everything within your power to win then it is simply human nature for the players to do the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander is the cliche that encapsulates the sentiment. They start taking reps off. The stop coming to voluntary activities. The take less time studying film. They don't give their all in practice. They start taking plays off in games.

What you end up with is what you see in moribund franchises like the Jets, Browns, Bucs and the like. They struggle to develop players, their players underperform on gamedays with repeated mistakes and evidence of physical inferiority.

I know you would be all on board for blowing the team up and replacing the coaching staff. You level of despair is to that point but we are not blowing up the team this year and doing it anyway literally just wastes the year even more than you already think it is.

Tanking does not propel an existing program to post season success. It never has and never will as the sport is currently constructed.

F.L., I love ya bro, but I have to respectfully disagree on this one topic. Here is why... If you have a smart G.M. and Owner and they suddenly had a bad year last year like the Cowboys due to several issues that cost various key players to miss games, thus resulting in the team falling out of playoff contention with still a game or two left in the season, it would be smart to gather up all the team (players and coaches) and talk to them in private about the goal of getting better draft positioning in order to get better talent for the upcoming season. That would show you which players want to be team players and which ones are only in it for themselves. Better draft positioning always trumps worst draft positioning. The key is in knowing how to pick the best draft picks available that will help your team. If you win enough games in order to brag that you had no losing season, yet fail to make the playoffs AND end up with a terrible draft picking spot, well, that's on you for being an idiot and not fully understanding how to play the system. As for the teams you have used as examples like the Browns, well, they suck simply because they have a terrible owner, terrible G.M. and terrible team decision and draft picking makers. Plain and simple. It doesn't mean one should use them as an example to discourage from tanking a game or two in order to get better draft picking positioning. You either are good at playing the system or you're not, but those who don't try to play the system definitely will never know just how good they could be at beating it. It's a poker game. Accept the challenge, learn from mistakes, take "hushed" risks in order to get ahead. If not, don't complain when you constantly draft late in each round, yet fail to build a very good quality team that can compete every year to qualify for the playoffs.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

F.L., I love ya bro, but I have to respectfully disagree on this one topic. Here is why... If you have a smart G.M. and Owner and they suddenly had a bad year last year like the Cowboys due to several issues that cost various key players to miss games, thus resulting in the team falling out of playoff contention with still a game or two left in the season, it would be smart to gather up all the team (players and coaches) and talk to them in private about the goal of getting better draft positioning in order to get better talent for the upcoming season. That would show you which players want to be team players and which ones are only in it for themselves. Better draft positioning always trumps worst draft positioning. The key is in knowing how to pick the best draft picks available that will help your team. If you win enough games in order to brag that you had no losing season, yet fail to make the playoffs AND end up with a terrible draft picking spot, well, that's on you for being an idiot and not fully understanding how to play the system. As for the teams you have used as examples like the Browns, well, they suck simply because they have a terrible owner, terrible G.M. and terrible team decision and draft picking makers. Plain and simple. It doesn't mean one should use them as an example to discourage from tanking a game or two in order to get better draft picking positioning. You either are good at playing the system or you're not, but those who don't try to play the system definitely will never know just how good they could be at beating it. It's a poker game. Accept the challenge, learn from mistakes, take "hushed" risks in order to get ahead. If not, don't complain when you constantly draft late in each round, yet fail to build a very good quality team that can compete every year to qualify for the playoffs.

if you actaully edit that post into paragraphs I will read it. I got through about three lines and your plan of getting the team together and telling them you are tanking to get better players and stopped reading hte wall of text.

I think you fail to realize that by announcing it like that you are basically telling the players they are so bad that it's not even worth trying and the only solution is getting better players from outside the organization. You have no concept of morale is what I get from that plan.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

And if the Cowboys had lost the game and gotten a higher draft pick, who's to say they wouldn't have traded down? And what if they have a player ranked in the top 10 but falls to 19 and they pick him at 15 but would have gotten him at 19 anyway? How many here complained about picking Jaylon in the second because "he would have been available in the 3rd or 4th or whatever round? Never know what this team will do in the draft.

I get the point that the higher draft pick you get, the better the prospect. That's certainly true, after all you don't see teams trading their no. 1 or 2 pick for several 4th round picks, that would be silly.

But I don't see that you can take as an absolute that it was bad to win the game...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you give me nothing to the questions posed to you. Absolutely nothing. You try to demand answers but give none yourself.



And "playoff success" includes actually qualifying for the playoffs. You can't have "success" if you're not even there.



You appear to be confusing not playing your starters or coaches going all out to win meaningless games as telling your players to stop working or throw the game. And they're two completely different things. I didn't see the Eagles players "quit" on the season when their coaches pulled them in a meaningless week 17 game.



Again, who's won a championship more recently, "moribund franchises" like the Bucs and the Colts that you've since omitted, or the Dallas Cowboys? If they're "moribund", we're now worse. Somehow, despite all of the "win, win, win" mantras you're claiming somehow breed success?



A completely unprovable claim.



You act like it's a common, admitted practice and give me a few recent examples and expect immediate results. Or short-sightedly think that one player at the top of the draft is supposed to change a team's fortunes overnight.

Again, I'll challenge you to tell me what Garrett's meaningless wins have ever gotten this team? They benefit nobody but him. By letting him continue to sit in a chair he's never earned. But like this entire conversation, I don't expect an answer. You demand them of others but don't supply them yourself.

You asked me for examples of tanking not working and I gave you several.

I do think it amusing that you think the players are so stupid that they cannot figure out what's going on with pulling starters and disadvantageous gameplans.

I addressed your point about the Bucs and Colts before. Suck for Luck was quite obviously after the Manning championship years. The Bucs started tanking 3 years ago not in 2002 under Gruden. Gruden would look at your plans of playing to lose with contempt.

And that is a provable claim. It's also a disprovable one as you could have denied it which you have not. Would you or would you not support blowing up the program?

I've been addressing your points and answering your questions; you are not paying attention. What I don't see is a single example of tanking working in the NFL.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And if the Cowboys had lost the game and gotten a higher draft pick, who's to say they wouldn't have traded down? And what if they have a player ranked in the top 10 but falls to 19 and they pick him at 15 but would have gotten him at 19 anyway?

I see the point that the higher draft pick you get, the better the prospect. That's certainly true, after all you don't see teams trading their no. 1 or 2 pick for several 4th round picks, that would be silly.

But I don't see that you can take as an absolute that it was bad to win the game...

They didn't get what they wanted. They are not looking at the bigger picture.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

They didn't get what they wanted.

What did the want?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What did the want?

The higher draft slot. They were cheering for a loss the past winter.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

What I don't see is a single example of tanking working in the NFL.

Whether a team "tanks" in the Cowboys, or other situation, and it worked or not isn't something you can tell, because once the action is taken, the result of doing the opposite will be forever unknown. Unless you can find an alternate universe that we can look into.

Really the whole argument comes down to opinions, since we're stuck with the draft position we're at.

And here's another scenario - perhaps a team had agreed to trade draft picks with Dallas before the game, and said they didn't care if it was the 15th or the 19th? We're not privy to Jerry/Stephen's conversations with other teams, e.g. so we just can't make absolute statements...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

The higher draft slot. They were cheering for a loss the past winter.

Who's "they"? Fans?

 

[Stash]

You asked me for examples of tanking not working and I gave you several.

The team's got the best player in the draft. It worked!

There's your examples, where are mine? Where are the examples of what Garrett's meaningless wins have done for anyone other than him?

I do think it amusing that you think the players are so stupid that they cannot figure out what's going on with pulling starters and disadvantageous gameplans.

I do think it's amusing that you care so much about what the paid employees might think that you'd run your business around it. Anybody who would stop doing their job could find another one elsewhere. If you're letting the inmates run the asylum, you're sure as hell not winning anything.

I addressed your point about the Bucs and Colts before. Suck for Luck was quite obviously after the Manning championship years. The Bucs started tanking 3 years ago not in 2002 under Gruden. Gruden would look at your plans of playing to lose with contempt.

But wait, they're "moribund franchises" despite the fact that both have won championships more recently than this one? That's the point. Yiu want to try to disparage them while the Cowboys look worse.

And that is a provable claim. It's also a disprovable one as you could have denied it which you have not. Would you or would you not support blowing up the program?

The coaching staff? Yeah, I absolutely would. You're simply wasting yet another year with a proven loser as your head coach. 7-plus years backs me up on that. That's provable. What's not provable is that making that change would make things worse.

I've been addressing your points and answering your questions; you are not paying attention. What I don't see is a single example of tanking working in the NFL.

I've already shown you that the teams got what they wanted, the top players in the draft. You haven't shown me one thing that Garrett's meaningless wins have gotten this team?

 

[Stash]

They didn't get what they wanted. They are not looking at the bigger picture.

What's the "bigger picture"? More sales jobs from Jerry Jones? More wasted years of Jason Garrett?

Some "big picture" there...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whether a team "tanks" in the Cowboys, or other situation, and it worked or not isn't something you can tell, because once the action is taken, the result of doing the opposite will be forever unknown. Unless you can find an alternate universe that we can look into.

Really the whole argument comes down to opinions, since we're stuck with the draft position we're at.

And here's another scenario - perhaps a team had agreed to trade draft picks with Dallas before the game, and said they didn't care if it was the 15th or the 19th? We're not privy to Jerry/Stephen's conversations with other teams, e.g. so we just can't make absolute statements...

Huh? You can find plenty of examples of teams that don't tank succeeding. The Patriots, Steelers, and Packers never tank yet they are consistently in the playoffs and winning playoff games year after year.

And it is an empirical fact not an opinion that no team that has tanked for draft status has won a playoff game in the past 20 years. Every team that has done it has failed.

That last bit is worse than worthless.

If you want to believe that tanking will lead to providence anyway then I cannot stop you but don't tell lies like saying my position is subjective and not empirical.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's the "bigger picture"? More sales jobs from Jerry Jones? More wasted years of Jason Garrett?

Some "big picture" there...

Playoff wins by your own words.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

if Marinelli thinks Vea is a 3 tech, he's an idiot

3 tech is a position, not a player. 3 tech requires more ability to pass rush and move along the line, or as Pro Football Focus says "The one quality most associated with the 3-technique position is quickness. Defensive coordinators want their 3-techniques playing in the offensive backfield and there is no better way to do this than with a swift first step."

If Vea has the quickness, he can play 3 tech...

 

[Stash]

Playoff wins by your own words.

Which Garrett and the Cowboys don't get.

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

 

[America's Cowboy]

if you actaully edit that post into paragraphs I will read it. I got through about three lines and your plan of getting the team together and telling them you are tanking to get better players and stopped reading hte wall of text.

I think you fail to realize that by announcing it like that you are basically telling the players they are so bad that it's not even worth trying and the only solution is getting better players from outside the organization. You have no concept of morale is what I get from that plan.

What do you want? A daycare? Did the players play up to par or not last season? Do some players need to be replaced or not? What do you want? To build a championship caliber team or to build an underachieving coddled team? Don't complain when they continue to not even smell an NFC Championship Game. You reap what you sow. You have no idea how to build a winner is what I get from your posts.