For those of you that say lose out for a better draft pick ...

[40yearfan]

... I say kiss my arse! There is NOTHING better than winning a game at home, especially after a seven game skid. It was soooo nice to walk out of the stadium a winner today and not have the opposing fans taunt me and other fans.

Thank you, Cardinals!!! Damn the draft pick!!!!

Brains, good looks and a winning attitude. You rock JG!!

 

[CaptTurbo]

Do you think Manning would have stayed had we had a chance to draft him? Something tells me Archie would have pulled the plug ojn that deal, just like he did with Eli.

Yup we woulda been stuck with Phillips and a bunch of draft picks lol

Good thing that didnt happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[earthsci]

Yup we woulda been stuck with Phillips and a bunch of draft picks lol

Good thing that didnt happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha! Now your argument changes. 7 years ago your argument was that we had lost any chance to get a franchise QB and that this would set the team back for ten years. Well we passed on the QB (2 of them) and 5 years later we were in the Super Bowl.

 

[CaptTurbo]

Ha! Now your argument changes. 7 years ago your argument was that we had lost any chance to get a franchise QB and that this would set the team back for ten years. Well we passed on the QB (2 of them) and 5 years later we were in the Super Bowl.

Yup and now 95% of ASFN is willing to wait 20 more years to wait for another aging future HOF to stop by. Id like to go a more traditional route like the other 31 teams.

 

[earthsci]

Yup and now 95% of ASFN is willing to wait 20 more years to wait for another aging future HOF to stop by. Id like to go a more traditional route like the other 31 teams.

Just because people don't want to lose on purpose doesn't mean that they don't want a young QB. That's why people want Skelton to do well. For every "sure fire" QBOF like Rivers or Manning you've got players like Couch, Russell, Smith and Carr. All first picks.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Just because people don't want to lose on purpose doesn't mean that they don't want a young QB. That's why people want Skelton to do well. For every "sure fire" QBOF like Rivers or Manning you've got players like Couch, Russell, Smith and Carr. All first picks.

This.

 

[CaptTurbo]

Just because people don't want to lose on purpose doesn't mean that they don't want a young QB..

Nobody is advocating losing on purpose. This is liek a GOP style attack on those not opposed to losing.

We just dont jump up and down in delirium when we when these meaningless games. Its really the only difference.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Just because people don't want to lose on purpose doesn't mean that they don't want a young QB. That's why people want Skelton to do well. For every "sure fire" QBOF like Rivers or Manning you've got players like Couch, Russell, Smith and Carr. All first picks.

i keep seeing this argument over and over again and it's the dumbest argument on the board.

if you look at qb's taken with the number 1 overall pick it is an overwhelming landslide what percentage of them (1) consistently make the playoffs, (2) make it to the superbowl, and (3) win the superbowl compared to any other single draft pick in the entire draft. it's called increasing your odds exponentially people. no one is saying it's a slam dunk. we just want better odds.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Nobody is advocating losing on purpose. This is liek a GOP style attack on those not opposed to losing.

We just dont jump up and down in delirium when we when these meaningless games. Its really the only difference.

exactly. in fact, we've each definitively stated that we don't want to tank. but you people keep putting words in our posts to try to prove your point.

 

[Mulli]

i keep seeing this argument over and over again and it's the dumbest argument on the board.

if you look at qb's taken with the number 1 overall pick it is an overwhelming landslide what percentage of them (1) consistently make the playoffs, (2) make it to the superbowl, and (3) win the superbowl compared to any other single draft pick in the entire draft. it's called increasing your odds exponentially people. no one is saying it's a slam dunk. we just want better odds.

Okay fine, there was still a shot before the Denver win. Now there is no shot at the #1 overall.

So if they have to trade up from the tenth pick or the 5th pick, what the difference?

 

[RugbyMuffin]

We just dont jump up and down in delirium when we when these meaningless games. Its really the only difference.

No problem.

But, then don't bash those who are enjoy those wins. You don't want to enjoy them, you would rather our team lose in order to gamble on a high round pick that is fine.

But, whom ever wants to call me "ignorant" for enjoying a win during "meaningless games" then I feel I have every right to call them a "quitter and/or a loser".

Second issue with this topic. I love. AB- SO - LUTELY LOVE. The "fact" that a higher pick guarantees you a HOF QB.

Just like Ryan Leaf....well no, but Akili Smith.....well, not him either, but David Carr.......wait let me try again, JaMarcus Russell.......wrong again, Alex Smith.....wait....oh forget it.

It takes a LOT of luck, good scouts, and knowing the QB that will fit your system to find your next HOF QB.

Throwing games is not going to help, and will set up a bad precendent amongst the entire team and organization. How do you tell your players to keep working hard, when you are going to throw a game. NFL football is 365 days a year, 24/7. You quit now, you lay the seeds to quit week 1, 2011 because on paper you will be playing "meaningless games" because your team is the media-proclaimed worst team in football, you lay the seeds to quit on the 9th rep of ten in the weight room, you lay the seeds of "who gives a damn, I am a millionaire anyway."

Just opening a box of suck, on an already poor football organization. All for this ridiculousness that some how we are guaranteed a HOF player if we pick #1 overall.

Ask Darnell Dockett if he cares about the #1 pick for next year.

Just makes no sense to me at all on any level what so ever.

 

[earthsci]

i keep seeing this argument over and over again and it's the dumbest argument on the board.

In your opinion. The point of the argument is even though your chances may better than drafting later you are still looking at around a 50% success rate. So after you've lost out and brought all of the negative stigma of doing so poorly, losing ticket sales, losing shirt sales and losing fans you've got a 50/50 chance of getting your QBOF. Considering how good we have been at identifying our first rounders I'll pass on that.

 

[earthsci]

Nobody is advocating losing on purpose. This is liek a GOP style attack on those not opposed to losing.

That is BS. Do we need to go back and find all of the names that you've called people for being happy about winning a "meaningless" game? GOP style attack. You freaked out after the Cards-Vikings game in 2003.

 

[Mulli]

exactly. in fact, we've each definitively stated that we don't want to tank. but you people keep putting words in our posts to try to prove your point.

tanking was the only way to lose to crap Denver.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Okay fine, there was still a shot before the Denver win. Now there is no shot at the #1 overall.

So if they have to trade up from the tenth pick or the 5th pick, what the difference?

really mulli?

uh, how about all the picks we'll have to give up to trade up. there's a difference.

how about what i believe to still be an inability of this FO to make that kind of magic happen. that's a bigger difference.

 

[chickenhead]

There's nothing wrong with being exceedingly happy when the Cards beat Denver, Dallas, or a divisional rival. I haven't been to a Cardinals home game since 1988: I can't even imagine how much season ticket holders have had to take from the fans of Denver, Dallas, and San Francisco over the years.

 

[Mulli]

really mulli?

uh, how about all the picks we'll have to give up to trade up. there's a difference.

how about what i believe to still be an inability of this FO to make that kind of magic happen. that's a bigger difference.

Luck not worth giving up more picks? Why?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

No problem.

But, then don't bash those who are enjoy those wins. You don't want to enjoy them, you would rather our team lose in order to gamble on a high round pick that is fine.

But, whom ever wants to call me "ignorant" for enjoying a win during "meaningless games" then I feel I have every right to call them a "quitter and/or a loser".

Second issue with this topic. I love. AB- SO - LUTELY LOVE. The "fact" that a higher pick guarantees you a HOF QB.

Just like Ryan Leaf....well no, but Akili Smith.....well, not him either, but David Carr.......wait let me try again, JaMarcus Russell.......wrong again, Alex Smith.....wait....oh forget it.

It takes a LOT of luck, good scouts, and knowing the QB that will fit your system to find your next HOF QB.

Throwing games is not going to help, and will set up a bad precendent amongst the entire team and organization. How do you tell your players to keep working hard, when you are going to throw a game. NFL football is 365 days a year, 24/7. You quit now, you lay the seeds to quit week 1, 2011 because on paper you will be playing "meaningless games" because your team is the media-proclaimed worst team in football, you lay the seeds to quit on the 9th rep of ten in the weight room, you lay the seeds of "who gives a damn, I am a millionaire anyway."

Just opening a box of suck, on an already poor football organization. All for this ridiculousness that some how we are guaranteed a HOF player if we pick #1 overall.

Ask Darnell Dockett if he cares about the #1 pick for next year.

Just makes no sense to me at all on any level what so ever.

i'm going to calmly respond.

first, this entire thread was directed precisely at those of us that preferred to lose. so i think this IS a proper place for us to respond.

second, please reread every post by those of us that wanted a loss. NO ONE said the higher pick "guarantees" anything. in fact, i've REPEATEDLY stated that it does not, but that it enhances your chances at landing one. don't put words into other's posts. people take that badly.

third, please reread every post by those us that wanted a loss AGAIN. NO ONE said they wanted to tank. NO ONE. we want effort. we want players to want to win. we just would have been happier, IN THE LONG RUN, with a loss. i REPEAT, NO ONE SAID THE TEAM SHOULD TANK.

rugby, this is not only directed at you, but many others that keep repeating your incorrect mantra that we espoused tanking and that we guarantee the #1 pick will be HOF . . . reading comprehension is crucial in these threads. please UNDERSTAND the content of someone's post before you attribute thoughts, concepts, and statements to them which could not be more wrong.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

In your opinion. The point of the argument is even though your chances may better than drafting later you are still looking at around a 50% success rate. So after you've lost out and brought all of the negative stigma of doing so poorly, losing ticket sales, losing shirt sales and losing fans you've got a 50/50 chance of getting your QBOF. Considering how good we have been at identifying our first rounders I'll pass on that.

50/50 (and i'll even state that i think that's high) is A LOT better than the likely percent of success at any other pick in the draft (where it likely drops to 0.05%).

and you really think the team is going to lose more ticket sales, shirt sales, and fans because they go 4-12 instead of 3-13? if so, you're even more pessimistic than am i.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

tanking was the only way to lose to crap Denver.

apparently.

but that doesn't mean that we wanted to tank. we just wanted to lose. we wanted to play the level of football that we've played all year so as not to garner an aberration win that didn't reflect the ability of this football team.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Luck not worth giving up more picks? Why?

he is (at least imo), but if we'd have lost and the stars aligned, we wouldn't have had to give up picks b/c we'd have had the 1st pick.

 

[Shane]

i'm going to calmly respond.

first, this entire thread was directed precisely at those of us that preferred to lose. so i think this IS a proper place for us to respond.

second, please reread every post by those of us that wanted a loss. NO ONE said the higher pick "guarantees" anything. in fact, i've REPEATEDLY stated that it does not, but that it enhances your chances at landing one. don't put words into other's posts. people take that badly.

third, please reread every post by those us that wanted a loss AGAIN. NO ONE said they wanted to tank. NO ONE. we want effort. we want players to want to win. we just would have been happier, IN THE LONG RUN, with a loss. i REPEAT, NO ONE SAID THE TEAM SHOULD TANK.

rugby, this is not only directed at you, but many others that keep repeating your incorrect mantra that we espoused tanking and that we guarantee the #1 pick will be HOF . . . reading comprehension is crucial in these threads. please UNDERSTAND the content of someone's post before you attribute thoughts, concepts, and statements to them which could not be more wrong.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2366073&postcount=49

Here's another whole thread implying that we should lose said or not.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f4/why-are-these-wins-important-161312.html

 

[earthsci]

and you really think the team is going to lose more ticket sales, shirt sales, and fans because they go 4-12 instead of 3-13? if so, you're even more pessimistic than am i.

I don't want them to go 4-12 instead of 3-13. I want them to go 7-9...and if we do I guarantee you that the team will be selling more shirts, tickets, etc. and have a much happier, larger fan base.

 

[earthsci]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2366073&postcount=49

Here's another whole thread implying that we should lose said or not.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f4/why-are-these-wins-important-161312.html

This was certainly a quote advocating try to lose.

Sorry, Herm. You gotta know when to call it quits and play to get a decent pick and better your team the next season.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2365366&postcount=1

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2366073&postcount=49

Here's another whole thread implying that we should lose said or not.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f4/why-are-these-wins-important-161312.html

the first one is the only one that mentions tanking as an option.

the second one just says that there are those of us that prefer to lose. it DOES NOT say anything about tanking.

congrats, you found one post in all the threads and have lumped us all into that single comment. bravo.