Teppo, i don't know if i would use the words moron but something pretty close. It was hilarious though. that one guys laugh, was contagious. i couldn't stop laughing.
I can't wait until you share another funny clip like that. keep them coming. At this time of night, it keeps me awake.
I have to think that this was a forced argument to show how dumb the argument of "tanking is a legit strategy" is. The guy arguing for tanking is clearly full of ****, the other guy doesn't have to work too hard to argue against tanking.
That said, this is on-par with like a 4th grade schoolbus debate.
I have to think that this was a forced argument to show how dumb the argument of "tanking is a legit strategy" is. The guy arguing for tanking is clearly full of ****, the other guy doesn't have to work too hard to argue against tanking.
That said, this is on-par with like a 4th grade schoolbus debate.
There are different degrees of tanking though - I would argue. You can bring up young kids that could benefit from extra playing time... start the backup goalie more frequently... sit regular starters who have any kind of nagging injury (which they all do by game 65/70).. even change up style and play pure run and gun. I would never advocate letting up in a game to cause a loss, but the things I mention above I think are legitimate.
In the salary cap era, you have to build a team through the draft. Unless you are the Red Wings, it is tough to do without a few top 5 picks in a row.
There are different degrees of tanking though - I would argue. You can bring up young kids that could benefit from extra playing time... start the backup goalie more frequently... sit regular starters who have any kind of nagging injury (which they all do by game 65/70).. even change up style and play pure run and gun. I would never advocate letting up in a game to cause a loss, but the things I mention above I think are legitimate.
In the salary cap era, you have to build a team through the draft. Unless you are the Red Wings, it is tough to do without a few top 5 picks in a row.
Well what you describe isn't tanking, it's development. If you're already not going to make the playoffs, then you have to use the rest of the season as an opportunity to develop systems and strategies that actually work, rather than using the ones that obviously didn't.
And I also think the Panthers would disagree with your second point.
There are different degrees of tanking though - I would argue. You can bring up young kids that could benefit from extra playing time... start the backup goalie more frequently... sit regular starters who have any kind of nagging injury (which they all do by game 65/70).. even change up style and play pure run and gun. I would never advocate letting up in a game to cause a loss, but the things I mention above I think are legitimate.
But this happens with teams that have clinched as well. They rest their stars to prep for the playoffs, try different PP lineups, throw the 4th liners a bone by putting them on the 1st line, etc...
Fans talk about it a lot, but I don't believe that any team has ever advocated tanking, nor shown any evidence of doing so. They may be out, but they are highly paid professionals and they are too competitive and have too much pride to finish the season on such a dour note. There is always something to play for. Bottom-feeding teams love playing spoiler.
Moreover, the players, coaches and management are still fighting for their jobs, off season acquisitions notwithstanding, and the last thing ownership wants to hear is that they wrote off the rest of the season even if it ensures decent draft strategy.
In short: If just doesn't happen. The risks far outweigh the benefits and the lottery-era ensures that.
The Jets would have the 10th pick today. If they lose the rest of their games they will get about the 7th. It is not as if they could have had the 1st pick. Both of these guy don't know what they are talking about. It is good to lose when your in the bottom 5, but a middle of the pack team would not benefit much from it.
Anyone who says "They could be a bust" is an idiot. Rarely they don't turn out, but 90% or more of the time the 1st pick will pay off. If you get a top 5 pick 4 years in a row at least 2 of them will turn out guaranteed. The Jets were not going to get that high of a pick so the other guys argument was pointless too.
Anyone who says "They could be a bust" is an idiot. Rarely they don't turn out, but 90% or more of the time the 1st pick will pay off. If you get a top 5 pick 4 years in a row at least 2 of them will turn out guaranteed. The Jets were not going to get that high of a pick so the other guys argument was pointless too.
I have to think that this was a forced argument to show how dumb the argument of "tanking is a legit strategy" is. The guy arguing for tanking is clearly full of ****, the other guy doesn't have to work too hard to argue against tanking.
That said, this is on-par with like a 4th grade schoolbus debate.
Jacques G and Teppo, you have to admit these guys are funny.I just read their bios on the about us page and it seems as if they're life long friends. I'm guessing, while the debate topic was staged and they probably didn't really care about their position, they are probably competitive and are a passionate about debating each other no matter what. I think that's funny.
Two seconds later, i decided that i should always go with my first thought. Cheers.
TOML
While I agree that it's a raw take, I think it was entertaining and provided lots of laughs. One guy was composed and the other guy had 1 foot int emergency room.
I think this there first audio podcast, so hopefully they will both gather their thoughts and refine the show. I still think it was pretty funny, even if it was amateur hour.
Hey TOMmaplelaughs had you listened to the whole podcast you'd have heard them take a shot at the maple leafs so maybe you should click again and kudos to those guys on their rookie podcast.
While I agree that it's a raw take, I think it was entertaining and provided lots of laughs. One guy was composed and the other guy had 1 foot int emergency room.
I think this there first audio podcast, so hopefully they will both gather their thoughts and refine the show. I still think it was pretty funny, even if it was amateur hour.
Aaaa, I didn't realize it was their first go at it. There's potential I guess, just seemed a bit too raw for my taste.
A really great example last night from the game I watched:
Wild vs Hawks in Chicago and the game goes into a shootout.
The one point the Wild are sitting with has them in the #4 draft spot. If they win the shootout the extra point they get moves them into the #7 draft spot (#4 to #7 is huge - no chance at #1).
Of course we all agree that under no circumstances are you going to want the Wild goalie (Harding) to intentionally let a goal in. Same thing for a shooter - you can't as a Wild player taking a penalty shot to intentionally miss.
The question is for the coach though. What happens if Mike Yeo decides not to go with his top three shootout guys (Christenson, Koivu, Setoguchi - all pretty deadly in the shootout). What if he goes with Cody Almond, Darrell Powe and Clayton Stoner? Is this tanking? Would there be outrage?
Personally, and I feel bad saying it, I was hoping the Wild lost the shootout (I am a huge Wild fan). The benefit of winning is minimal compared to what would be lost dropping from from #4 to #7. Draft picks in the salary cap era (especially for a team that is not a haven for free agents) are just too valuable.
At any rate, Yeo goes with the top 3. They went 2 for 3. Hawks went 1 for 3 (FU Kane) and the Wild get the extra point - Horray!
Teppo,
There was a Strib piece about the Wild not tanking it. I think the reporter questioned Yeo about why his team is playing hard now? That's funny in its own right.
Seems as if the "Morons" aren't the only ones who are talking about this subject.
Does anyone remember the suck for luck campaigns that team fans wanted last year? Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio had an article about this and claims that the NFL could talk about instituting a draft lottery.
Seems like the suck for luck campaigns drew the ire of the NFL.
