What was the point in winning our last game?

[JackOfNoTrades]

Yeah. Coaching staff and by extension ownership needed to have a "winning season" to sell. Even though everyone can see it was a hollow as they come.

while I agree, we should have been playing many more back-ups and youngins on the roster for evaluation, etc.

edit: replied to wrong post! lol Intended to respond to posts re tanking is for losers and a loser mentality

 

[OmerV]

Well Philly did it that game and look how their season ended.

We won for no reason. It was like a scrimmage and now we're paying for it.

So, if we had tanked we would have won the Super Bowl? Who knew?

The fact is, Philly was protecting players from injury that would be needed in the playoffs. That's a different scenario. The Cowboys did the same thing in 2016. and many fans trashed them for it. Of course, hindsight is always a nice basis for criticism.

 

[J_Allen]

Hard to get rid of a losing mindset on a team and among the fan base when a good deal of the fan base wants to lose...whether it be one game or more and whether it is to get a better draft pick, or show jerry, or to embarrass jerry or just to be a argumentative fake fan....whatever the reason it is a loser mentality.

If you want to try and change my mind...don't bother, you will not., this team has lost enough over the last decade...I don't want them to lose even if you might think it is for the betterment of the team in some warped loser mentality.

No fan wants to lose unless it's the very last game when the season is over if it means getting a better player in the draft and helping the next season.

I'm sorry you can't see that but thanks a lot for the lecture.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No fan wants to lose unless it's the very last game when the season is over if it means getting a better player in the draft and helping the next season.

I'm sorry you can't see that but thanks a lot for the lecture.

I am here anytime you need one about trying to justify losing as anything other than losing.

Maybe those here who like it should just cozy up to Cuban and the Mavs.

 

[OmerV]

Well duh. You don't tank by telling the players not to play.

Were you guys born like yesterday?

Where did I say that's how they would tank? Do you really think the players wouldn't know that's what the team was doing if they benched all their starters?

 

[J_Allen]

I am here anytime you need one about trying to justify losing as anything other than losing.

Maybe those here who like it should just cozy up to Cuban and the Mavs.

There's nothing better than squeaking out a win against backups when you're playing your starters and losing five spots in the draft.

A loss would have been better in the long run. That's all I'm saying.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

There's nothing better than squeaking out a win against backups when you're playing your starters and losing five spots in the draft.

A loss would have been better in the long run. That's all I'm saying.

Wanting a loss is wanting to lose and wanting to lose is a losing mentality...I don't care how many creative ways someone tries to justify it.

 

[CouchCoach]

I wanted the higher draft pick as well but with a disappointing season at 8-7 and facing the division winner, I don't think throwing the game was even a consideration and with that they could only manage a 6-0 win. However, they can claim to beating the SB Champ like they did in 1989.

Considering the score against backups, I don't think anyone celebrated a victory but a loss was not the way to go into the off season.

 

[Old'Boyfan]

So how exactly do you intentionally throw a game? Do you tell your players "hey guys, we really need to lose this game to better our draft position, so play crappy OK?" Nope, besides having a naturally competitive nature these players have plenty of incentive to play well and win. Think free agency, bonus's, etc. Do you have your coaching staff and more precisely your play callers intentionally call bad plays? They also have that competitive nature and other possible incentives to do well. Do you hold back starters? They may have contractual incentives to play.
It's a ridiculous notion, not to mention a terrible practice, to try to carry through such a thing. Losing breeds losers.

 

[Rockport]

It's called thinking about the future. That win meant absolutely nothing besides screwing up our draft position.

No, it’s called losing. And it’s ridiculous.

 

[DallasEast]

Intentional losing mindset for gaining nonguaranteed draft selection success yet again, probably to be followed by statements of increased possibilities of draft pick success due to higher slotting...which does not circumvent the illogic of the nonguaranteed factor.

CowboysZone Wait. Where is the head beating against the brick wall smiley?

 

[Rockport]

There's nothing better than squeaking out a win against backups when you're playing your starters and losing five spots in the draft.

A loss would have been better in the long run. That's all I'm saying.

I bet you quit quite often.

 

[DallasEast]

So how exactly do you intentionally throw a game? Do you tell your players "hey guys, we really need to lose this game to better our draft position, so play crappy OK?" Nope, besides having a naturally competitive nature these players have plenty of incentive to play well and win. Think free agency, bonus's, etc. Do you have your coaching staff and more precisely your play callers intentionally call bad plays? They also have that competitive nature and other possible incentives to do well. Do you hold back starters? They may have contractual incentives to play.
It's a ridiculous notion, not to mention a terrible practice, to try to carry through such a thing. Losing breeds losers.

I must remember to repost your comment every time a thread on this topic is created.

 

[OmerV]

It's called thinking about the future. That win meant absolutely nothing besides screwing up our draft position.

It's not the death blow to our draft the way you want to make it. All it does is slightly lower the odds of making the best pick because a few more guys will be off the table. In the end drafts are not sure things, even if a team has a top 10 pick, and teams can still find gems later in the draft. If the team makes a good choice at #19 there may not be a loss at all, and if there is it may be very marginal.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

What was the point? Well let's go over the reasons given for losing or not losing:

1. Won so Garrett can have two winning records is a row? First of all, if anyone can read his mind, they need to go to Las Vegas and do a show on the strip, I'm sure the ability to read minds would make a big impression on people. And really, a guy who is an ex-NFL player, and a head coach of one of only 32 NFL teams, who doesn't have to worry about his job is going to feel oh so much better because he went 9-7 instead of 8-8? And wouldn't make the playoffs if he won? Who's going to say 20 years from now "wow, he had a winning record two years in a row back in 2016 and 2017, good thing it wasn't 8-8 the second year, that would mean he's a bad coach". Nobody knows if that's why they tried to win the game.

2. You would get 4 more spots up the draft list. Oh, so you mean we'd have a chance to get Fitzpatrick, Chubb, Ridley, Vea or Nelson? Not likely. If you subscribe to the "there's only 14 top draft picks", at 15 you're still missing out on those.

3. It's about the future. Who knows what the future holds? Cowboys wanted Francis in the 1990 draft, couldn't get him, so they had to "settle" for Emmitt Smith. How'd that work out? And Dak had a not-very-good year in 2017, he was in only his second year, think he doesn't need the work? How about Woods, Awuzie, Brown, Switzer et al? NFL game experience isn't a good thing? Even against second teamers, it's still against NFL players, whom even the second stringers are better than 95% of college players. Games aren't like practices, you can't duplicate game experience.

Now I'm not saying they didn't try to win to help Garrett, to have the players feel better because they had a "winning" record. That's entirely possible, but there are reasons not to tank the game, as well...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

It's not the death blow to our draft the way you want to make it. All it does is slightly lower the odds of making the best pick because a few more guys will be off the table. In the end drafts are not sure things, even if a team has a top 10 pick, and teams can still find gems later in the draft. If the team makes a good choice at #19 there may not be a loss at all, and if there is it may be very marginal.

Emmitt Smith was a 17th pick. Larry Allen was drafted in the second round. Darren Woodson was drafted in the second round. Daryl Johnston was a second round pick. It goes on and on, if you restrict your draft efforts to just getting as high a first round pick as you can, you are severely short sighted...

 

[John813]

I would feel confident in saying 9 out of 10 players want to win every game, no matter if they are in or out of the playoffs.
Could be due to team pride, or playing for a new contract. For every guy that gets that huge contract, there are plenty of other guys hoping to show enough to get their next contract/not be phased out by a rookie.


I get the whole draft spot slide, which was why I wasn't going to be upset had they lost, but I don't really root for the team to lose, nor would I be happy had the team just rolled over to Philly's backups/3rd stringers.

 

[Rockport]

There's only 53 available players. Do the math on how many starters you can sit.

 

[Big_D]

Momentum heading into 2018? Garrett’s at his best when there’s nothing on the line!!

 

[ThatJerryKid]

Several means more than two. We would be sitting five spots lower so several is correct.

You're telling me you would rather win a game of no consequence even if it means missing out on a better player in the draft?

Yes, but I am a winner. Always have been......