Whats the Difference??

[JTech194]

Whats the difference between the fans suck for luck campaign (which I don't necessarily agree with) and what most teams do at the end of the season when they've locked up a playoff spot and they sit their starters? In the latter case they are making a decision that will better them in the future by not playing starters and having them healthy for the playoffs. The players on the field are actually playing hard so no player thats actually playing is trying to lose. Why can't management make a decision based on the betterment of the team and tell the coach "Hey, we're 0-8, we can't make the playoffs, lets prepare for the future and get our young players in the game and sit the starters". This will essentially accomplish 2 things.

1. It will almost ensure we lose a good amount of our remaining games because other teams will be playing their starters because they are still in the playoff race and ensure us a high draft pick in every round.

2. This will get our younger players some much needed game experience which will make them and the team better next year

The coaches aren't going to make this decision as their jobs are on the line so this will have to come from Mr Ross himself. I don't see the problem with this and I think all teams should do it. If i was an owner I'd sure as hell do it. And if the Coaches and Veteran players have something to say about it, I'd tell them to suck it up and deal with it because if they coached and played better I wouldn't be making this damn decision.

Does this make sense or am I a crazy person?

 

[rent this space]

One difference is that when a team rests starters before the playoffs, it benefits everyone involved. Tanking the season helps only those that are around next year

 

[JTech194]

One difference is that when a team rests starters before the playoffs, it benefits everyone involved. Tanking the season helps only those that are around next year

Not true. The starters get to rest and get healed for next season which will help them way more than playing and risking injury for nothing. It's a win win for everyone with the exception of the coaches which wt 0-8 i could care less about because if they were better we wouldn't be in this situation.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

or maybe treat it like a pre-season game where the starters play a limited number of snaps just to keep them from getting rusty.

 

[HarryBagpipe]

One difference is that when a team rests starters before the playoffs, it benefits everyone involved. Tanking the season helps only those that are around next year

Well isn't who's here next year what we should only care about. At this point why should I care about what benefits sparano, Henne or Matt moore this year

 

[Kinzua]

A team won't win many games no matter how much talent they have if the players feel there's no real commitment to winning. They don't play like a team but like a collection of divas, every primadonna for herself. Look at the Eagles and the Bills. Comparing talent, there's no way the Bills should be on the same field as the Eagles, but it's the Bills that are 4-2 and the Eagles that are 2-4.

The Bills started last season 0-8, but Chan Gailey never, ever sold out and let his team "run for the bus". He played every game to win, and he taught his young team to never give up. The Bills went 4-4 in their last 8 games in 2010, and they've started 4-2 this season, including two marvellous come from behind last second wins over Oakland and NE. That's because Gailey's Bills don't quit. Ever.

You hear commentators talk all the time about how teams that have been losing for a while "need to learn how to win". Well, the best way to instill that winning attitude is to start believing you can win when you're already down and out. Ask the Lions who struggled to a 6-10 record while they figured out how to win, and who are now 5-1.

Now, in regards to the Fins, I don't think Sparano can instill that kind of never-say-die attitude in the current team the way Gailey or Schwartz have. He's more of a "hope to win" HC, and he's been undermined by the FO. IMO, he's like a death row inmate: it's just a matter of time before he's history. So, I suppose, the Fins stay active in the Suck For Luck Sweepstakes.

 

[Vaark]

If there's nothing left to play (either pro or con) for toward season's end, don't discount divisional rivals' "Suck To Lock Out Luck" tank jobs too.

 

[rent this space]

Well isn't who's here next year what we should only care about. At this point why should I care about what benefits sparano, Henne or Matt moore this year

the OP was about the difference between resting starters before the playoffs and "suck for luck". I was saying from the player's and coach's standpoint, it's completely different.

 

[fishfanmiami]

The Bills started last season 0-8, but Chan Gailey never, ever sold out and let his team "run for the bus". He played every game to win, and he taught his young team to never give up. The Bills went 4-4 in their last 8 games in 2010, and they've started 4-2 this season, including two marvellous come from behind last second wins over Oakland and NE. That's because Gailey's Bills don't quit. Ever.

You hear commentators talk all the time about how teams that have been losing for a while "need to learn how to win". Well, the best way to instill that winning attitude is to start believing you can win when you're already down and out. Ask the Lions who struggled to a 6-10 record while they figured out how to win, and who are now 5-1.

That's why I think winning some games near the end of the season will set us up to start fast next year. Winning breeds winning and beat the Pat and Jets the last two game will bod well for next year. We'll still get a high pick and a good QB.
Hell if the Colts get the first pick , our first and Long to protect Manning might be a deal worth making.

 

[GoonBoss]

#1, those guys are not out there sucking for luck.
#2, resting your starters for a game or two is a reward for
a season of excellence. It's not tanking a game. They are still trying
to win, only doing so with lesser players.

 

[NY8123]

A team won't win many games no matter how much talent they have if the players feel there's no real commitment to winning. They don't play like a team but like a collection of divas, every primadonna for herself. Look at the Eagles and the Bills. Comparing talent, there's no way the Bills should be on the same field as the Eagles, but it's the Bills that are 4-2 and the Eagles that are 2-4.

The Bills started last season 0-8, but Chan Gailey never, ever sold out and let his team "run for the bus". He played every game to win, and he taught his young team to never give up. The Bills went 4-4 in their last 8 games in 2010, and they've started 4-2 this season, including two marvellous come from behind last second wins over Oakland and NE. That's because Gailey's Bills don't quit. Ever.

You hear commentators talk all the time about how teams that have been losing for a while "need to learn how to win". Well, the best way to instill that winning attitude is to start believing you can win when you're already down and out. Ask the Lions who struggled to a 6-10 record while they figured out how to win, and who are now 5-1.

Now, in regards to the Fins, I don't think Sparano can instill that kind of never-say-die attitude in the current team the way Gailey or Schwartz have. He's more of a "hope to win" HC, and he's been undermined by the FO. IMO, he's like a death row inmate: it's just a matter of time before he's history. So, I suppose, the Fins stay active in the Suck For Luck Sweepstakes.

There is a huge difference between Buffalo's attitude and Miami's at this point. I have said for two years now that Buffalo is quietly becoming a powerhouse again and the one thing that they clearly have that Miami doesn't, is team chemistry.

Miami has zero heart and no soul. Say what you will but when there were some vets around this joint like Porter, Pennington, etc... the team stayed strong. These young kids are not pulling their weight in the leadership department. The coaching staff has lost the team and that is disastrous, it is going to take almost going 0-16 and the media pounding that message home until these Dolphins rally and play a game again.

 

[JTech194]

A team won't win many games no matter how much talent they have if the players feel there's no real commitment to winning. They don't play like a team but like a collection of divas, every primadonna for herself. Look at the Eagles and the Bills. Comparing talent, there's no way the Bills should be on the same field as the Eagles, but it's the Bills that are 4-2 and the Eagles that are 2-4.

The Bills started last season 0-8, but Chan Gailey never, ever sold out and let his team "run for the bus". He played every game to win, and he taught his young team to never give up. The Bills went 4-4 in their last 8 games in 2010, and they've started 4-2 this season, including two marvellous come from behind last second wins over Oakland and NE. That's because Gailey's Bills don't quit. Ever.

You hear commentators talk all the time about how teams that have been losing for a while "need to learn how to win". Well, the best way to instill that winning attitude is to start believing you can win when you're already down and out. Ask the Lions who struggled to a 6-10 record while they figured out how to win, and who are now 5-1.

Now, in regards to the Fins, I don't think Sparano can instill that kind of never-say-die attitude in the current team the way Gailey or Schwartz have. He's more of a "hope to win" HC, and he's been undermined by the FO. IMO, he's like a death row inmate: it's just a matter of time before he's history. So, I suppose, the Fins stay active in the Suck For Luck Sweepstakes.

Yea but there is a big difference between the Bills, Lions and the Dolphins. The Bills and Lions both had young talented players that just needed time to learn the game and get better Calvin Johnson, Sue, stafford, fitzpatrick, the bills RB etc... so it makes since to stick with those guys in hopes of them getting better and figuring it out. This is NOT the case with the dolphins. We don't have young potential superstars starting for this team team that just need game experience to figure things out. So at this point playing the likes of Moore, Dansby, Columbo, Burnett, Bess, etc will accomplish nothing. Why not give Pat Devlin, Gates, the rookie FB\TE, the young LB's more playing time? Get them the experience that will help us next year. I don't see Moore, Bess, Columbo Dansby or Burnett getting that much better next year. As an owner you have to do whats best for the present and future of your team and once you're eliminated from the playoffs it's time to start working on the future.

 

[JTech194]

#1, those guys are not out there sucking for luck.
#2, resting your starters for a game or two is a reward for
a season of excellence. It's not tanking a game. They are still trying
to win, only doing so with lesser players.

And what I'm proposing is the same thing. The players that are on the field will be trying to win, they will just be our lesser players. And sitting the starters would be punishment for sucking culo for 8 games. Let them answer the media questions about why they aren't playing as much etc..

 

[JTech194]

That's why I think winning some games near the end of the season will set us up to start fast next year. Winning breeds winning and beat the Pat and Jets the last two game will bod well for next year. We'll still get a high pick and a good QB.
Hell if the Colts get the first pick , our first and Long to protect Manning might be a deal worth making.

It should be obvious that one year has nothing to do with the next, (at least not for the dolphins) Our defense was top 6 last year and now we're dead last? How does that happen? Nothing changed, same coach, same scheme same players with the exception of what 2?

 

[JTech194]

the OP was about the difference between resting starters before the playoffs and "suck for luck". I was saying from the player's and coach's standpoint, it's completely different.

But i'm not talking about from the players and coaches standpoint, If I'm the owner I could care less about how they feel about it because they are the reason I'm making this decision in the first place. If they played better and won games this wouldn't be an issue. I'm saying Ross as an owner should send the mandate down to the coaches, and if they don't conform, then they get fired mid season. Period. At the end of the day it's His Franchise and his job to look out for his teams best interest both short and long term. The coaches only look of for their best interest short term. Screw them.

 

[GoonBoss]

And what I'm proposing is the same thing. The players that are on the field will be trying to win, they will just be our lesser players. And sitting the starters would be punishment for sucking culo for 8 games. Let them answer the media questions about why they aren't playing as much etc..

No, you are proposing tanking games. Teams that have already have the playoffs in hand aren't
tanking games. They are resting players which is completely different. No pro athlete would tolerate that
and no pro coach would do it.