1 draft spot CAN make a difference.

[diver]

Again, do not lose sight of the premise. The premise is to lose the last 3 games. This whole argument hinges on going 5-11 for the 9th pick. There is no guarantee of that even if you play the young guys. They might win. What, Gradkowski doesn't want to win when he is out there? More would have to be done to insure losing, and that is a bad place to go.

Stop out thinking yourselves.

 

[keslerclan]

I don't think you EVER play to lose (a mentality which doesn't exist, IMO in professional sports) BUT you should play to see what you have in your 'bench'. We see it all the time in other sports when EITHER the playoff spot is locked or the team is eliminated. The problem has been on this team that they have remained successful for so long. This stretched the cap for the team and diminished 'known' depth at positions. Also, with the cap-strapped situation being as it were, the team employed 'stashing' young talent in the hopes that the vets (if they remained healthy) could finish out their time while the team felt they had a decent prospect ''waiting in the wings".

They got caught doing this with lesser players like Joe Long who was picked off and is now with Chicago finishing his apprenticeship as well as some hungry players like Al Woods who had to escape out the back door to Tennessee. Arnfelt is the next Woods IMO, which is why he was not played as much as he might have warranted. Sometimes you get caught in this scenario, especially if you don't have the cap to keep the developing players on the roster. Woods probably thought he should have been starting (or getting more reps) over Hood, who was likely gone as a FA. The team didn't want another scenario like they had with McClendon, who got some reps and was pursued by the Packers causing us to sign him to a larger contract than we would have had to if he had no tape. Who knows who else on the team felt this way in the past. Maybe Moye is tearing it up in practice and they didn't want to risk losing him by playing him too soon? (I doubt it though).

The problem is, we were forced to see what we had in Worilds, Heyward, Cotchery, Wallace(c) and a host of lousey TEs due to injury and poor play in front of them. We likely would still have been able to sign Worilds (without a tag), Cotch and Wallace without too much competition IF they hadn't shown their potential to other teams. Wallace would have been signed for the minimum instead of getting a new 'reflective' contract. It happened, we dealt with it and we lost some money and a few players.

Very few teams have had to 'try' to maintain cap compliance through 6-8 years of competitive play. We saw what happened to 'role' players in SF, Carolina and Seattle this year when they had success. This has been a fight the Steelers have been in for two decades. It's not easy staying at the top when everyone else wants a piece of what you have. I don't necessarily agree with how they approached the playing time of younger talent BUT I understand what they were trying to do. I would have liked to see some younger guys in the 'mix' over the last few years BUT we see what happens to those players if they 'flash' potential. It is a fine line that SOME players respond to by trying harder while some get impatient and make a change. We weren't likely to win our 7th the last 2 years but we have to realize MOST teams go into full rebuild mode after a run like we had.

 

[TMC]

I'm saying you are unrealistic in your "tanking" idea and even playing some of the guys you recommended doesn't mean we lose the games.

And I still strongly think (I call bullshit), that if you really were the head coach, you don't call Ben Roethlisberger into your office when he's healthy and tell him right to his face he's not starting the Cincinnati game.

And I'm pretty sure if you tried to pull that ****, Art Rooney would call you into his office and tell you never to do it again.

You are promoting a very slippery slope for the league. What's to prevent Cleveland (who was out of it as well) to OUT-TANK you the last game of the year? According to you, that should be well within their right. Let's just have a Tank Fest around the league starting around week 10 like the NBA does. Wonderful plan.

What you are promoting isn't realistic and is never going to happen in the NFL. Teams that rest starters for the playoffs EARNED that right because they played hard and won football games. How did the Steelers earn the right to rest their guys for NEXT SEASON? When does that actually happen for you? 3-6? 4-8? 1-5?

You make it sound like losing on purpose is easy and nobody will ever know.

What's your Monday morning message as a coach when you stand up in front of the team after we lost to Miami?

"Okay boys, season's over. Next week we'll be starting Gradkowski and the week after than Landry Jones. I still want you to play hard so we know if you're a good player or not, the tape is the tape and all that crap, but don't play hard enough to win, okay? Oh... and keep this to ourselves, since what we're talking about is probably going to get us in trouble and don't leak it to the press."

Yeah, TMC, you'd be a wonderful ******* head coach. Joke with capital J.

Everyone says play the scrubs, everyone says lose the game. No one here would have the guts or the balls to stand up in front of 53 players that worked their *** off since August and tell them we're going to start tanking games. And if someone here says they would, I call bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit.

Did I ever state it was a head coaches decision? No, I did not. I guess you struggle to ******* read or comprehend that. I acknowledge that this decision has to come from higher up the ladder. I fully recognize that it would take an owner's approval. I would hope an owner who is generally a pretty savvy business person would understand short term pain for long-term gain. Apparently it is a difficult concept for people to grasp.

And, are you really telling me teams do not tank games? The Colts were ALL aboard the suck for Luck campaign. They started Kerry Collins when Manning was hurt. When Collins went down, they went with Curtis Painter. They added Orlavsky and STILL continued to start Painter. When Orlavsky was getting playing time, he was vastly superior to Painter. Painter had 2 starts where he completed less than 50% of his passes (in a passing offense) and three more where he completed less than 55%. So, five of his 8 starts he completed less than 55%. In 8 appearances and 5 starts, Orlavsky was worse than 55% only once. He was responsible for the Colts two wins that season.

The Colts were 0-13 and the next closest team was the Rams at 2-11. The Rams drop the next two, but the Colts win. The Colts beat a 10-6 Houston team and a 9-7 Tennessee team and then, miraculously, lose in the final week to the 5-11 Jaguars. I am absolutely sure the Colts' owner wanted his team to win that one because everyone knows he would have rather had the guy behind Luck.

I would certainly have the balls to stand up in front of them and state it. The first one that stood up and said something I would gladly tell he should have been that pissed off when they went 0 and ******* 4. You can call bullshit all you like. Just because you would lack the sack to do it does not mean others do.

 

[TMC]

Let me also add this, I did not know that Hood, Woods, and Sanders were gone. If the choice were MINE, I would not have released them. Why? Because I would have taken that ******* 3rd for Sanders, something we won't see now, be lucky to get a 5th next season, likely get NADA since we signed Mitchell.

Hood was an easy choice. Who here wanted him back? Good thing we showcased him for those three games. Hell, I would have rather played Woods, Arnfelt, a traffic cone.

And, again, freely admit that playing the backups does not guarantee a loss, but it damn sure helps your chances and also allows you to know what is there entering this season.

Of course, del is just happy with the plan going forward. He likes sitting in the middle of the round and running to the podium for Jarvis Jones. He likes giving up 3rd round draft picks for one and done WRs that fail to contribute.

 

[Steelers1356]

Until the NFL moves to a draft lottery system teams will continue to tank. I suppose sometimes it's necessary but it also sucks to see high valued picks wasted on notorious, constantly tanking losers like Cleveland. Imagine what the Steelers could do with top talent like that?

 

[Black & Gold Bleeder]

Hood was an easy choice. Who here wanted him back? Good thing we showcased him for those three games. Hell, I would have rather played Woods, Arnfelt, a traffic cone.

And, again, freely admit that playing the backups does not guarantee a loss, but it damn sure helps your chances and also allows you to know what is there entering this season.

I agree.. I think it was silly to play hood.. we needed to see more arnfelt to know what the boy has entering 2014.. now we are sitting here wondering ... maybe we need keisel back.. maybe we need haageman in the draft etc.

 

[deljzc]

Did I ever state it was a head coaches decision? No, I did not. I guess you struggle to ******* read or comprehend that. I acknowledge that this decision has to come from higher up the ladder. I fully recognize that it would take an owner's approval. I would hope an owner who is generally a pretty savvy business person would understand short term pain for long-term gain. Apparently it is a difficult concept for people to grasp.

And, are you really telling me teams do not tank games? The Colts were ALL aboard the suck for Luck campaign. They started Kerry Collins when Manning was hurt. When Collins went down, they went with Curtis Painter. They added Orlavsky and STILL continued to start Painter. When Orlavsky was getting playing time, he was vastly superior to Painter. Painter had 2 starts where he completed less than 50% of his passes (in a passing offense) and three more where he completed less than 55%. So, five of his 8 starts he completed less than 55%. In 8 appearances and 5 starts, Orlavsky was worse than 55% only once. He was responsible for the Colts two wins that season.

The Colts were 0-13 and the next closest team was the Rams at 2-11. The Rams drop the next two, but the Colts win. The Colts beat a 10-6 Houston team and a 9-7 Tennessee team and then, miraculously, lose in the final week to the 5-11 Jaguars. I am absolutely sure the Colts' owner wanted his team to win that one because everyone knows he would have rather had the guy behind Luck.

I would certainly have the balls to stand up in front of them and state it. The first one that stood up and said something I would gladly tell he should have been that pissed off when they went 0 and ******* 4. You can call bullshit all you like. Just because you would lack the sack to do it does not mean others do.

So let's get it out on the table. It's an owner's decision to tank. He has to sign off on it.

Then the GM has to agree to it. Then the coach has to implement it. The players have to somewhat buy into it.

I remember the suck for Luck campaign. Interesting side story I guess. One the league certainly doesn't want year-in, year-out but once in 10 years for a once in 10 year QB? They can probably look the other way (even if I disagree they were playing weaker players on purpose - Painter vs. Orlavsky doesn't seem like much of a choice).

You seem to want to Suck to ???. 15th vs. 9th pick? Let's suck up the joint. 20th to 15th pick? Let's suck up the joint again.

I still don't think you are reading the **** you're spewing. Now it's a organization philosophy that comes from the owner. "When we're almost eliminate from the playoffs (or about 95%), we should purposely start trying to subvert winning football games. We don't want it to look obvious, but I want 2nd stringers getting more reps. I want to maybe fake injury reports to get our backup QB in the game." The GM has to buy in. The coach has to buy in. The assistant coaches have to buy it. They have to hold up against media scrutiny. They have to hold up against a call from Roger Goodell and some of his Vegas buddies.

This is really what you are advocating the Steelers organization becoming? This is how you would run a team if you bought it?

Again. I call complete bullshit. You'd piss your pants and shelve you "tank it for a #9 pick" as soon as ESPN started running stories about "Tank Gate" in Pittsburgh. Somewhere it would get out that you are benching Roethlisberger when he's healthy to try and get a better draft choice. Someone would snitch that you directed the GM and coaching staff to not try and win so hard.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. No way do you play Gradkowski over Roethlisberger. No ******* way in all hell.

 

[CorpusDsteelers]

Why the hell would you tank last 3 games? We had a chance for the playoffs even after our last game was played just needed two or three teams to lose the late games. We had a chance to get in if we won I would understand tanking if we were out but **** man we had a chance. Pretty sure we won a Super Bowl before from the wildcard slot.

 

[TMC]

It would always be an owner's decision. YOU are the one putting it on the coaches. You know, kind of like when the coaches and GM decide they want an OG with the 11th pick in the draft and then the owner walks in the room. I am quite sure Colbert did not look at him and say "**** off old man". Nobody would.

If an owner tells you to do something, you do it OR you get your *** fired. Have you ever worked for someone else?

Yeah, the suck for Luck campaign was kept under such tight wraps. No T-shirts or anything.

http://www.zazzle.com/suck+for+luck+tshirts

Shocked you did not know. Must have been one of the NFL's best kept secret. You do realize teams were in the "Suck for Luck" watch by week 3. THREE. Not 15, not 13, week 3.

http://uproxx.com/sports/2011/09/suck-for-luck-power-rankings-week-3/

But, it only happened once. Yeah, and Santonio was holding that pot for a friend.

 

[Stryker]

So what did the Lions gain again from their winless season? Matthew ******* Stafford?? Too bad they didn't suck for luck...

 

[Wingman]

"You make it sound like losing on purpose is easy and nobody will ever know."
Quoted from del
They have managed to loose games everyone thought they would win with regularity even with out trying. Nobody says don't try just save your stars for next year. It would have really sucked to have Ben tear something that takes him out for the following year by playing him in a meaningless game. If not trying as hard betters the team for future seasons that is a good thing. winning games that don't matter, don't matter. We will just disagree on this.