Just lose baby, just lose

[jason]

i think you are basically saying what those who have said that losing these final games are implying?

 

to me it goes like this... once you are eliminated mathematically from post season you treat the remaining games like they were preseason. you sit your veteran core that are under contract for the following season that you INTEND to have return.

 

you play your second and third string players to see, as you suggested yourself, whether they are dead weight on your team or whether they warrant a roster spot next season. it is just common sense and healthy for your future success.

 

there are exceptions of course - free agents who want to showcase their talent for the open market. sparingly adding offensive linemen to prevent qb's from getting killed by putting one or two into your existing line per game and compensating with additional blocking schemes using fullbacks, TE's etc. to help block if the transition is failing. the choice of keeper veterans under contract trying to make incentive money or possibly set records if they choose to do so. but you CERTAINLY sit veterans that have any significant injury without question.

 

this is not giving your team the best chance to win but it is necessary to really evaluate the health of your roster for the following season. if you win these games great. that means your backups have real potential. if you lose you still have evaluated the talent and you get a better draft pick. it also gives your vet core time to heal or at the least not risk further injury. it's a win/win situation.

 

that said, what gauls me is the lovie aspect. keeping your veteran core in these games that mean nothing to fatten their win/loss record for the coaches to keep their jobs. in this instance you are risking the following season for absolutely nothing and have learned nothing of what kind of depth or future starters you have on your roster.

 

Exactly. Except Lovie, even though I hated when he won those season-ending, meaningless games, was perpetually on the hot-seat, so he wanted to pad his coaching record and save his job.

[jason]

Oh and while this is a business, these guys are paid to play and fans want to see guys play. I'd be pretty pissed if I paid money to see a bunch of practice squaders run around the field.

 

On this, you're dead on. But guess what? The Spurs do it all the time. And the NBA hates them for it. But they seem to be doing pretty well as a franchise as a result of resting their guys. Speaking of them, they bombed out one year when Duncan went down, and ended up getting a great draft pick: Tim Duncan. Those two played pretty well together for a while.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I'm just sick of the argument is all. 72% in favor, even though we both thought it would be higher, is enough. That is a high percentage. 72% is something I'd take to Vegas and become a millionaire many times over.

 

 

 

Keep in mind I never said the Bears should try to lose the games. I'm just saying that when the team is obviously in need of a lot of help, it has a statistical probability of helping the team long term to lose (not on purpose) and get a better draft position. I believe all the data in this thread pretty much proves that point.

Isn't the statistic that would matter most how teams performed who had top picks vs. teams with middle picks over a 1 / 3 / 5 year horizon. Essentially showing is a 4 win team more likely to get better because of their top 5 pick vs. a 6 win team with their top 15 pick? I realize their are a lot of variables to this equation and I presume you would have some sort of trend factor, identifying teams who are a 6 win team and trending down vs. a 6 win team that is trending up. My point remains, that you can't like at this in a vacuum and just say picking top 5 would be better. I am much happier having won 6 games than 1 game. I think we'd be in for a much longer haul if we had just won a game this year vs. the 6 we did win. Now I would argue that the difference between 6 or 7 becomes relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so I get the point to some degree, but totally tanking just is crazy to me.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

On this, you're dead on. But guess what? The Spurs do it all the time. And the NBA hates them for it. But they seem to be doing pretty well as a franchise as a result of resting their guys. Speaking of them, they bombed out one year when Duncan went down, and ended up getting a great draft pick: Tim Duncan. Those two played pretty well together for a while.

I argue what the Spurs do is for the overall health of their players to ensure they are their for the post-season and when it matters. I could see an argument saying losing games intentionally is better for the health of the organization, but I don't really see that in football. One player, with the exception of a stud QB, will not turn a franchise around. Just not going to happen. In this draft, no one is worthy of that sort of potential, where I could argue that we would be better with 1 win and the #1 overall spot. I argue that we are better off ascending upwards with improving young players, etc, and getting an 11 pick, than we would have been as a 3 win team because Jay sucked and all of our young players sucked.

 

I also think a lot of this season was about changing the culture. That doesn't happen if at week 14 Fox just pulls his vets. I also argue it is hard to evaluate players if most everyone on the field is crap. Can't evaluate a wideout very easy if the QB and oline suck...can't evaluate the RB if the oline is trash and the QB can't throw....can't evaluate a CB that well if the dline gets zero pressure, etc.

 

Now I do think their is a fine line late in the year and you need to selectively sit certain guys because it is in your best long-term interest to do so (from a player development / evaluation perspective vs. a draft pick improvement perspective). I even will go as far as saying later in the season development matters more than wins (as I think that is true). But I fully do not condone tanking with rare exceptions (such as if Andrew Luck was going to get drafted and you knew if you lost the final 2 games you would get the top pick...I'm sorry...in that case I'm playing the worst QB on the planet and going with it). I'm not having a tanking because of the difference between the 6th pick and the 11th pick or even the 11th and the 1st (unless some once in a decade type talent is available).

 

Let me ask you this...does anyone want to be the Philadelphia 76er's now? No NBA player wants to go there? What about the Browns (who consistently suck and pick in the top 10)? I certainly don't. The Packers have rarely had top 10 picks, same with the Pats, they do just fine (now you could argue this highlights the importance of QB and to a certain extent I agree).

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I think the key to all of this is having the right upper management, great coaches, and stability. Having a QB is up there too. Once the above is all in place, the right players will fall in place. Picking higher has its benefits, the stats do not lie. If the above mentioned is not in place, you will see busts. The Bears I believe are on the right path. Having another high pick should help close the gap quicker. Once they have pieces in place, the draft becomes easier even if picking in the bottom.

[jason]

Isn't the statistic that would matter most how teams performed who had top picks vs. teams with middle picks over a 1 / 3 / 5 year horizon. Essentially showing is a 4 win team more likely to get better because of their top 5 pick vs. a 6 win team with their top 15 pick? I realize their are a lot of variables to this equation and I presume you would have some sort of trend factor, identifying teams who are a 6 win team and trending down vs. a 6 win team that is trending up. My point remains, that you can't like at this in a vacuum and just say picking top 5 would be better. I am much happier having won 6 games than 1 game. I think we'd be in for a much longer haul if we had just won a game this year vs. the 6 we did win. Now I would argue that the difference between 6 or 7 becomes relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so I get the point to some degree, but totally tanking just is crazy to me.

 

I think that's something else to consider, but, you're right, there are a ton of ways to evaluate this. Too many moving parts. The best way we really have is to see where a player is picked and what his career ends up being. Trying to quantitatively determine your suggestion would be a nightmare with free agency, coaching changes, injuries, etc. We know the Bears just from the past 10 years have had some drastic swings and most don't have anything to do with the rookie draft picks.

 

For instance: 2004 they went 5-11 and then drafted Cedric Benson, Mark Bradley, Kyle Orton, et. al. The next year they went 11-5, but it wasn't because of any of the picks. It was because half the defense made the pro-bowl and they were an automatic turnover machine.

 

BTW - The one thing everyone is ignoring in this equation about how different the picks are is how much they are worth. Every team uses the draft value chart to some extent, and even from 7 to 6 there is a difference that is worth a high 4th round pick. For a team like the Bears that needs so many positions upgraded, that kind of value is important. What if the Bears were able to trade down 5-6 spots and pick up an extra 2nd rounder? That has to be considered as well. I'd rather have a team full of 2nd round guys who make the pro bowl every other year than a team full of average guys surrounding a HoF'er.

[CrackerDog]

I'm just sick of the argument is all. 72% in favor, even though we both thought it would be higher, is enough. That is a high percentage. 72% is something I'd take to Vegas and become a millionaire many times over.

 

Well, considering 50% is a coin flip, 22% better (really 44% of the upside) isn't as impressive. But yeah, it's enough for me to say that drafting earlier has value and that's why teams give up extra shit (picks, players etc) to move up. If it had no value teams wouldn't do that.