I say we "Dive for a Top 5"!!!!!

[LBrown43]

Originally Posted by mooby

I say if you are a pro athlete, it would be extremely embarrassing if at any point you thought about not giving 100% on the field, especially if you are getting paid a lot of money to do so.

I also say it's pathetic that as a fan you would actively root for this team to lose games for a higher draft pick next season. Name one instance, in the entire history of the big 4 sports leagues in the US, where a team that looked like it was tanking the season actually landed the higher draft pick next year that brought the team good fortune, meaning championships and not just regular season wins, for the next decade.

Well there is always this:
1983 to 1988: The Pittsburgh Penguins/Mario Lemieux sweepstakes The team had the league's worst record in both the 1983 and 1984 seasons, and with the team suffering financial problems, it again looked as though the Penguins would fold. Mario Lemieux, one of the most highly touted NHL draft picks in history, was due to be drafted in the 1984 NHL Entry Draft. Heading towards the end of the season ahead of the New Jersey Devils, who were placed last, the Penguins made a number of questionable moves that appeared to weaken the team in the short-term. The Penguins posted three six-game winless streaks in the last 21 games of the season (out of which they won only three) and earned the right to draft Lemieux amidst protests from Devils president Bob Butera.[4] Pittsburgh coach Lou Angotti later admitted that a conscious decision was made to finish the season as the team with the worst record, stating in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that a mid-season lunch prompted the plan, in light of the fact that there was a high chance of the franchise folding if Lemieux was not drafted.[5] In particular, Angotti gave the example of a game the Penguins were winning 3–1, at which point general manager Eddie Johnston asked the coach "what are you doing?" in the first intermission of the game that was eventually lost 6–3.

Looks like a pretty good example to prove you wrong, hell the coach admitted it later....but still hate to see the Skins lose on purpose.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by LBrown43

Well there is always this:
1983 to 1988: The Pittsburgh Penguins/Mario Lemieux sweepstakes The team had the league's worst record in both the 1983 and 1984 seasons, and with the team suffering financial problems, it again looked as though the Penguins would fold. Mario Lemieux, one of the most highly touted NHL draft picks in history, was due to be drafted in the 1984 NHL Entry Draft. Heading towards the end of the season ahead of the New Jersey Devils, who were placed last, the Penguins made a number of questionable moves that appeared to weaken the team in the short-term. The Penguins posted three six-game winless streaks in the last 21 games of the season (out of which they won only three) and earned the right to draft Lemieux amidst protests from Devils president Bob Butera.[4] Pittsburgh coach Lou Angotti later admitted that a conscious decision was made to finish the season as the team with the worst record, stating in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that a mid-season lunch prompted the plan, in light of the fact that there was a high chance of the franchise folding if Lemieux was not drafted.[5] In particular, Angotti gave the example of a game the Penguins were winning 3–1, at which point general manager Eddie Johnston asked the coach "what are you doing?" in the first intermission of the game that was eventually lost 6–3.

Looks like a pretty good example to prove you wrong, hell the coach admitted it later....but still hate to see the Skins lose on purpose.

Even in this case, I doubt the players were mailing it in. Management just shipped whatever good players left out of town, and I'm ok with that. It's management's job to get as many championships as possible, whatever the cost.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Even in this case, I doubt the players were mailing it in. Management just shipped whatever good players left out of town, and I'm ok with that. It's management's job to get as many championships as possible, whatever the cost.

What he said. If management decides to play it like that, whatever. But good luck asking London Fletcher to miss tackles, give up big plays, etc. And it's too late to ship players out of town, so in order to secure the possibility of the first overall pick, we'd have to start cutting our good players. Either way I don't think it's feasible. And it's dumb. I will admit I was wrong, as apparently it's been done before. But I still don't like it, and 1 time out of all the times teams might've done it is not a good track record. Besides, what if you tank, and finish with the 2nd overall pick? What then?

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Even in this case, I doubt the players were mailing it in. Management just shipped whatever good players left out of town, and I'm ok with that. It's management's job to get as many championships as possible, whatever the cost.

Wrong. The Pittsburgh Penguins 100% gave up for Lemieux. It's a very known thing in the hockey world that crappy teams get reminded about every year.

The ironic part is that Lemieux was a generational hockey talent, well some argue a better talent than Wayne Gretzky prior to when he suffered cancer.. Is Andrew Luck a generational quarterback talent?

[irish]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

Wrong. The Pittsburgh Penguins 100% gave up for Lemieux. It's a very known thing in the hockey world that crappy teams get reminded about every year.

The ironic part is that Lemieux was a generational hockey talent, well some argue a better talent than Wayne Gretzky prior to when he suffered cancer.. Is Andrew Luck a generational quarterback talent?

I lived in Pgh at this time and the team was so bad it was difficult to tell how much they were "giving up". The organization knew they had to get ML to keep the franchise alive in Pgh (the rumor was they were going to Hamilton ON) and while it never seemed like they overtly tanked games there was definitely a sense of understanding that losing was more beneficial than winning.

I find it hard to believe that pros could be talked into tanking games for the sake of the team getting a higher draft pick. These pros are much more concerned with keeping thier bonafides intact so when the time comes they can catch on with another team.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

Wrong. The Pittsburgh Penguins 100% gave up for Lemieux. It's a very known thing in the hockey world that crappy teams get reminded about every year.

The ironic part is that Lemieux was a generational hockey talent, well some argue a better talent than Wayne Gretzky prior to when he suffered cancer.. Is Andrew Luck a generational quarterback talent?

Management(top dogs) certaintly did by deliberately removing the good players from the roster. I'm ok with that.

But I'm talking about the players and coaches. Were the players just plain ass or did they not give any effort? It's not hard to find the scrub hockey players in your system.

[irish]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Management(top dogs) certaintly did by deliberately removing the good players from the roster. I'm ok with that.

But I'm talking about the players and coaches. Were the players just plain ass or did they not give any effort? It's not hard to find the scrub hockey players in your system.

In the Pens case the players were just plain ass and the coach wasnt much better.

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Management(top dogs) certaintly did by deliberately removing the good players from the roster. I'm ok with that.

But I'm talking about the players and coaches. Were the players just plain ass or did they not give any effort? It's not hard to find the scrub hockey players in your system.

Considering I was a Leafs fan who finished 4th last, I followed it closely. I remember their team was constantly being switched around. 3rd line center played 10 games as the 1st line center while the 4th line center played as the 2nd line center, and so on... They just did everything they could to lose more games than New Jersey who were also unexpectedly terrible. The fans and players didn't complain because they had Lemieux to look forward too.. What did he do the year after he was drafted? Scored 100 points, won rookie of the year, the next year he had 141, and within five years he had back to back stanley cup championships.

You can't exactly say it didn't work for them, or their players went into a "losing mentality".

Quarterbacks are game changers, Andrew Luck can turn a team around.

I love London Fletcher as much as the next guy, he will always be my favorite linebacker... But he's 36 years old and our team sucks, we need a quarterback. You can be our linebacker coach London, but this team won't make the playoffs while you're here.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

...I love London Fletcher as much as the next guy, he will always be my favorite linebacker... But he's 36 years old and our team sucks, we need a quarterback. You can be our linebacker coach London, but this team won't make the playoffs while you're here.

Fletcher's situation seems likely to play out like Ken Harvey's - the Skins didn't get to the playoffs under Norv until the year after Harvey was done. In hindsight, Shanny would have been much better off keeping Jason Campbell as the caretaker at QB until he found his "franchise" player. You can never convince me that Rex or Beck are better options than Campbell.

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Fletcher's situation seems likely to play out like Ken Harvey's - the Skins didn't get to the playoffs under Norv until the year after Harvey was done. In hindsight, Shanny would have been much better off keeping Jason Campbell as the caretaker at QB until he found his "franchise" player. You can never convince me that Rex or Beck are better options than Campbell.

Absolutely, Jason Campbell wasn't in those MVP talks (not that they were completely serious) that one season for nothing. He can make the throws with an offensive line.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

Considering I was a Leafs fan who finished 4th last, I followed it closely. I remember their team was constantly being switched around. 3rd line center played 10 games as the 1st line center while the 4th line center played as the 2nd line center, and so on... They just did everything they could to lose more games than New Jersey who were also unexpectedly terrible. The fans and players didn't complain because they had Lemieux to look forward too.. What did he do the year after he was drafted? Scored 100 points, won rookie of the year, the next year he had 141, and within five years he had back to back stanley cup championships.

You can't exactly say it didn't work for them, or their players went into a "losing mentality".

Quarterbacks are game changers, Andrew Luck can turn a team around.

I love London Fletcher as much as the next guy, he will always be my favorite linebacker... But he's 36 years old and our team sucks, we need a quarterback. You can be our linebacker coach London, but this team won't make the playoffs while you're here.

Well, upon looking at the careers of the players on the 1983 and 1984 rosters at Pro Hockey Refernce, I see that almost all of the Penguins on the '83 roster that made it to the '84 roster never got to bask Lemieux's glory after his rookie season. And the coach didn't come back either. So it was hardly profitable for most involved, the exceptions being Denis Herron and the GM.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Management just shipped whatever good players left out of town, and I'm ok with that.

Aka....the 2011 Denver Broncos. Send your best WR to the Lions and were shopping Orton, Dumervil (or so rumors suggest). Even through this, the team still plays hard and tries to win each week.

NBA on the other hand, many of those jackasses don't even play 100% regardless where they are in the standings.