...ain't nothin' wrong w/ bein' right!

 

I just pressure-washed my deck, removed an eroding stain, and applied a fresh coat of stain that will last ten years. Sure, it sucked while I was pressure washing for hours, but overall my deck will be stronger for a longer period of time as a result.

 

I've taken heat on this board for my beliefs, but I honestly think it's harder to build a consistent contender if you constantly hover near .500. You neither gain the advantage of the high draft pick, nor the advantage of being a winning franchise of which FA's desperately want to be a part. It's better for a franchise overall to have one or two atrocious, top-5 pick seasons where picks can be stock-piled and draft position can be maximized.

 

The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher. Sure, there are hits and misses, but overall there are better players drafted higher. There is no debate to this. So it's just easier to draft higher; there is a higher percentage of landing a marquee player.

 

I'm not ashamed at all to admit I think this team would be better off losing a lot this year.

 

I just pressure-washed my deck, removed an eroding stain, and applied a fresh coat of stain that will last ten years. Sure, it sucked while I was pressure washing for hours, but overall my deck will be stronger for a longer period of time as a result.

 

I've taken heat on this board for my beliefs, but I honestly think it's harder to build a consistent contender if you constantly hover near .500. You neither gain the advantage of the high draft pick, nor the advantage of being a winning franchise of which FA's desperately want to be a part. It's better for a franchise overall to have one or two atrocious, top-5 pick seasons where picks can be stock-piled and draft position can be maximized.

 

The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher. Sure, there are hits and misses, but overall there are better players drafted higher. There is no debate to this. So it's just easier to draft higher; there is a higher percentage of landing a marquee player.

 

I'm not ashamed at all to admit I think this team would be better off losing a lot this year.

 

I agree 110%.

 

Peace

 

Me too

I just pressure-washed my deck, removed an eroding stain, and applied a fresh coat of stain that will last ten years. Sure, it sucked while I was pressure washing for hours, but overall my deck will be stronger for a longer period of time as a result.

 

I've taken heat on this board for my beliefs, but I honestly think it's harder to build a consistent contender if you constantly hover near .500. You neither gain the advantage of the high draft pick, nor the advantage of being a winning franchise of which FA's desperately want to be a part. It's better for a franchise overall to have one or two atrocious, top-5 pick seasons where picks can be stock-piled and draft position can be maximized.

 

The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher. Sure, there are hits and misses, but overall there are better players drafted higher. There is no debate to this. So it's just easier to draft higher; there is a higher percentage of landing a marquee player.

 

I'm not ashamed at all to admit I think this team would be better off losing a lot this year.

 

Lol.... i agree with you.....but I don't think the Cleveland Browns do.....lol

 

I do agree, but it is so sweet seeing the team look good like they did against the Vikings. I would prefer they look good and lose, but boy is it nice to see them look good.

I just pressure-washed my deck, removed an eroding stain, and applied a fresh coat of stain that will last ten years. Sure, it sucked while I was pressure washing for hours, but overall my deck will be stronger for a longer period of time as a result.

 

I've taken heat on this board for my beliefs, but I honestly think it's harder to build a consistent contender if you constantly hover near .500. You neither gain the advantage of the high draft pick, nor the advantage of being a winning franchise of which FA's desperately want to be a part. It's better for a franchise overall to have one or two atrocious, top-5 pick seasons where picks can be stock-piled and draft position can be maximized.

 

The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher. Sure, there are hits and misses, but overall there are better players drafted higher. There is no debate to this. So it's just easier to draft higher; there is a higher percentage of landing a marquee player.

 

I'm not ashamed at all to admit I think this team would be better off losing a lot this year.

 

There's plenty of debate. How wrong you are. I'm not going to repeat AGAIN how ludicrous I think this is. (Ok maybe I am). And should t have to say regardless of the record your proposal to simply 'give up' is just plain pathetic. How do you expect to develop this very young team by asking them to roll over and play dead so you can be happy that the Bears might instead get a top 5 draft pick? Sad...sad.

 

A few weeks ago, Jordan Howard was interviewed and said Coach Fox reminded everyone that he had a very poor start with the Panthers several years ago, much like this year with the Bears. Yet they were able to keep focused and made the playoffs despite themselves. That's the kind of inspirational coaching our young players need. Not; "Don't worry guys, there's always next year." Not now.

 

That being said, if we were to have the Bears give up now, how would you explain to them to do that now that Minnesota has lost two in a row and GB is now 4-4? This season is no near way over...not yet. Even if Cutler playing.

Dp

There's plenty of debate. How wrong you are. I'm not going to repeat AGAIN how ludicrous I think this is. (Ok maybe I am). And should t have to say regardless of the record your proposal to simply 'give up' is just plain pathetic. How do you expect to develop this very young team by asking them to roll over and play dead so you can be happy that the Bears might instead get a top 5 draft pick? Sad...sad.

 

A few weeks ago, Jordan Howard was interviewed and said Coach Fox reminded everyone that he had a very poor start with the Panthers several years ago, much like this year with the Bears. Yet they were able to keep focused and made the playoffs despite themselves. That's the kind of inspirational coaching our young players need. Not; "Don't worry guys, there's always next year." Not now.

 

That being said, if we were to have the Bears give up now, how would you explain to them to do that now that Minnesota has lost two in a row and GB is now 4-4? This season is no near way over...not yet. Even if Cutler playing.

Couldn't agree more! Winning and/or trying to win becomes habit.

I've taken heat on this board for my beliefs, but I honestly think it's harder to build a consistent contender if you constantly hover near .500. You neither gain the advantage of the high draft pick, nor the advantage of being a winning franchise of which FA's desperately want to be a part. It's better for a franchise overall to have one or two atrocious, top-5 pick seasons where picks can be stock-piled and draft position can be maximized.

 

The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher. Sure, there are hits and misses, but overall there are better players drafted higher. There is no debate to this. So it's just easier to draft higher; there is a higher percentage of landing a marquee player.

The numbers say something entirely different though. If you take the top 10 teams in the league over the past 10 years (by record) and add up how many times they picked in the top 10, you will see that your theory does not stand up. NE, IND, PIT, GB, SD, BAL, DEN, DAL, SEA, and NO have only drafted in the top 10 in the last 10 years (100 potential picks) 12 times (and 5 of those were from DAL/SEA). So the other 8 teams only had 5 top 10 picks in the last decade. They have consistently won because of solid overall drafts, and not because of higher picks. There have only been 5 selections by these teams in the top 5 in the last 10 years with PIT not having a pick higher than 15.

The numbers say something entirely different though. If you take the top 10 teams in the league over the past 10 years (by record) and add up how many times they picked in the top 10, you will see that your theory does not stand up. NE, IND, PIT, GB, SD, BAL, DEN, DAL, SEA, and NO have only drafted in the top 10 in the last 10 years (100 potential picks) 12 times (and 5 of those were from DAL/SEA). So the other 8 teams only had 5 top 10 picks in the last decade. They have consistently won because of solid overall drafts, and not because of higher picks. There have only been 5 selections by these teams in the top 5 in the last 10 years with PIT not having a pick higher than 15.

 

You're twisting the point. I said: "The draft picks have been proven statistically numerous times to be better as you draft higher."

 

That is irrefutable. There has been more than one statistical breakdown on this site. The higher the round, the higher statistical chance of drafting a future HOFer, All-Star, etc.

 

I'm just talking about increasing the chances of doing better. Hovering around the middle doesn't do that. Sure, it's possible if you nail your draft, but that's less likely. As for the teams you mentioned, each can be explained by either nailing a huge draft pick (NE, DAL, IND, PIT, GB, SEA), consistently being one of the best drafting teams in the NFL (GB, BAL, NE), having one of the best front offices in the NFL (NE, PIT, BAL, SEA, NO), or just not belonging on the list (SD). The Bears have had none of the first 3 attributes, so it's behooves them to draft higher for percentage sake. When you're starting a race and you're not all that fast or athletic, the further towards the front the better.

Couldn't agree more! Winning and/or trying to win becomes habit.

 

In yesterday's NFL I might be more inclined to agree. But habits like that aren't the same when the NFL has such a high turnover rate. You're getting guys from all over the place and that winning habit is not shared.

In yesterday's NFL I might be more inclined to agree. But habits like that aren't the same when the NFL has such a high turnover rate. You're getting guys from all over the place and that winning habit is not shared.

Disagree with you totally. If you're a player coming to a team that has a desire to win, then you're probably going to buy in. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are a lot like your words, Jason, on "if and buts." Turnover rate has nothing to do with the team's attitude. You said it, "in today's NFL", yeah these players are going to the money, but they also what a real shot at the ring. And that's why I disagree with ya.

 

Disagree with you totally. If you're a player coming to a team that has a desire to win, then you're probably going to buy in. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are a lot like your words, Jason, on "if and buts." Turnover rate has nothing to do with the team's attitude. You said it, "in today's NFL", yeah these players are going to the money, but they also what a real shot at the ring. And that's why I disagree with ya.

 

Yeah, but how do you get over the hump?

 

If the Bears aren't winners, then those FA winners don't come to the Bears (i.e. no influx of winning habit players).

And if the players you bring in aren't winners, you don't have that winning habit (i.e. current players not winning).

Cycle repeats until you nail the draft for a few years straight.

 

Hence, a team like the Bears is better suited to get high draft picks for a few years so they have a higher percentage of picking winners.

 

Think of it a different way:

If you're a FA, do you want to go to a team that is perpetually around .500, with decent talent, and poor draft success?

Or do you want to go to a team that dropped for a year or two, drafted some franchise-level players, and has the promise of a team on the rise?

Yeah, but how do you get over the hump?

 

If the Bears aren't winners, then those FA winners don't come to the Bears (i.e. no influx of winning habit players).

And if the players you bring in aren't winners, you don't have that winning habit (i.e. current players not winning).

Cycle repeats until you nail the draft for a few years straight.

 

Hence, a team like the Bears is better suited to get high draft picks for a few years so they have a higher percentage of picking winners.

 

Think of it a different way:

If you're a FA, do you want to go to a team that is perpetually around .500, with decent talent, and poor draft success?

Or do you want to go to a team that dropped for a year or two, drafted some franchise-level players, and has the promise of a team on the rise?

If the Bears stay on course, they can get over the hump. It takes time to draft and develop. Sure, having higher picks can help speed the process, but you have to draft the right guy either way whether picking 1 or 10. Give this team two more drafts and the talent should be looking good. The Bears may win a few more games this season or not, but there is no way they lose intentionally.

Think of it a different way:

If you're a FA, do you want to go to a team that is perpetually around .500, with decent talent, and poor draft success?

Or do you want to go to a team that dropped for a year or two, drafted some franchise-level players, and has the promise of a team on the rise?

 

 

If you're a FA most times you go for the money. Ask Jamie Collins (although it was more a trade). He was looking for money that NE wasn't willing to pay and now plays for perennial 1st round picking team Cleveland.