Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree6Likes
  • 3 Post By mh-i
  • 1 Post By AvengerRam
  • 1 Post By Fortuninerhater
  • 1 Post By tomahawk247

Thread: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

  1. #1
    eldfan's Avatar
    eldfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Greenville N.C.
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,655
    Rep Power
    25

    Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    . .Home / Sports / Columns / Bryan Burwell


    Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea
    Share | .StoryDiscussionBurwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea
    BY BRYAN BURWELL, Post-Dispatch Sports Columnist STLtoday.com | Posted: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:30 am |

    This 2011 Rams' season has long ago gone way off course from its predicted destination. In August, who didn't think the Rams were bound for a place called hope? But now, we're back on that familiar road to nowhere, veering so far off the original path that the Rams easily could circle right back where this supposed road to redemption began nearly two years ago.

    You know the place, don't you?

    It's called the top of the NFL draft.

    After Sunday's rather predictable loss to Cincinnati, the Rams' record sank to a dismal 2-12, second worst in the NFL. What might have escaped some of your attention is thanks to the woeful Indianapolis Colts' first victory of the season, with two weeks to play, your Rams are in a heated three-team race with the 1-13 Colts and 2-12 Minnesota Vikings for the No.1 pick in April's draft.

    That little bit of unfortunate news has set off a lot of second-guessing and downright idiotic speculation that the Rams ought to be "Losing for Luck," as in intentionally tanking games for the chance to draft Andrew Luck, the Stanford quarterback who most draft experts are tabbing as the odds-on No.1 pick. These disgruntled folks with short memories want the Rams to tank their last two games, then hope that the Colts mess up and win their last two, which would allow the Rams to kick Sam Bradford to the curb and draft Luck with the 2012 No.1 pick.

    These people, of course, are idiots.

    They're misguided to think that somehow that the 2010 No. 1 pick has become some hopeless flop. They're convinced the Rams need to re-start their search for a franchise QB, and that Andrew Luck is the answer to all of the team's problems.

    But it's a bad idea to write off Bradford based on the impossible circumstances of this wretched season. One of the smartest football wise guys I know, legendary former Dallas Cowboys personnel guru Gil Brandt, is a huge Bradford fan. We have talked a lot about Bradford over the past few years, and he was one of the first people who convinced me before the 2010 draft that the Rams had to go with Bradford over defensive tackle Ndamakong Suh.

    He was right then, and he's right now when he says to keep believing in Bradford. Every time I see him, he always smiles and says the same thing, "So how's Sam working out?"

    It isn't like he's actually looking for an answer, because he already knows the answer.

    With a glint in his eye, it's Brandt's way of telling me, "I told you so."

    Brandt's views haven't changed despite Bradford's rough sophomore season. He's just as convinced now that Bradford will be a star in this league as he was nearly two years ago when we had our first conversation about Bradford's potential.

    So here's what I'd say to all those numbskulls who want to jump off the Bradford bandwagon: show a little more patience.

    But I will say this about the Lose for Luck game plan.

    It isn't such a bad idea for this franchise to position itself as close to the top of the 2012 draft as possible (not that they have a choice at this point). But imagine the good that can happen from owning the No. 1 draft pick this season. For that matter, it isn't such a bad idea to be in the Top 3 when you think about it, because a lot of teams are desperate to draft a franchise quarterback and at least three other potential franchise QBs who will be available in this year's draft Matt Barkley, Robert Griffin III and Landry Jones.

    So here's what I'd do if I were general manager Billy Devaney. I would bring Bradford into my office as soon as possible and instruct him to ignore everything he hears over the course of the next few months because it is all going to be nothing but lies, misdirection and smoke screens.

    I'm not talking about the mindless internet and radio talk-show chatter. I'm talking about all the rumors that the Rams need to strategically begin floating all over the place in an effort to better position themselves for potential trades.

    Yeah, if you're the Rams, you ought to start as much Andrew Luck gossip as you can, because for every team that thinks it might be seriously contemplating taking Luck, the more value that No.1pick has in trade. If the Rams end up with the second or third pick, that still leaves them in great position to dangle the pick for a trade, which would help them collect as many high draft picks as they possibly can.

    The Rams already have their QB of the future.

    But Bradford needs help. Lots of help. The Rams' goal heading into the offseason ought to be to accumulate as many picks as they can. If they can trade out of the top three picks, still end up with a game-breaking receiver (Justin Blackmon) and pick up more elite talent, they have to do it. And if it means conning folks to do it, do it. Please.

    The top of the 2012 draft is full of intriguing talent that could immediately help the Rams: big offensive tackles who can block out the sun (Matt Kalil, Jonathan Martin, Riley Reiff); a receiver who can be a big-play threat for this offense (Blackmon); a couple of lockdown cornerbacks, too (Morris Claiborne, Dre' Kirkpatrick).

    So, despite the dismal outcome of this season, there is something to look forward to over the last two weeks if you are a Rams fan. Advantageous draft position.

    So here's your helpful draft-position primer. The tie breaker for the No.1 draft pick is the team with the weakest strength of schedule. Indy has the decided edge with two games to play. How much that changes over the last two games is hard to determine, mainly because all three teams share common foes (the Rams share six common opponents with Indy and four with Minnesota).

    As agonizing as this lost regular season was, the pending offseason promises to be dramatically more intriguing.


    bryan-burwell/burwell-losing-for-luck-is-a-stupid-

    :ramlogo:

  2. #2
    mh-i's Avatar
    mh-i is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    CA
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,248
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Intentionally tanking games? Like the Rams have any chance of beating the Steelers or Niners. This guy is living in dream land.

  3. #3
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,730
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    From what i understand, the tie breakers make it virtually impossible for the Rams to get the top pick, so to get it the Rams need to lose out, the Colts have to win two and the Vikings one.

    Possible, but not likely

  4. #4
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,138
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Quote Originally Posted by eldfan;40900

    But [B
    it's a bad idea to write off Bradford based on the impossible circumstances[/B] of this wretched season. One of the smartest football wise guys I know, legendary former Dallas Cowboys personnel guru Gil Brandt, is a huge Bradford fan. We have talked a lot about Bradford over the past few years, and he was one of the first people who convinced me before the 2010 draft that the Rams had to go with Bradford over defensive tackle Ndamakong Suh.

    He was right then, and he's right now when he says to keep believing in Bradford. Every time I see him, he always smiles and says the same thing, "So how's Sam working out?"


    So here's what I'd say to all those numbskulls who want to jump off the Bradford bandwagon: show a little more patience.

    -
    Lets talk after next year Sam will be fine...

  5. #5
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,245
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Who has suggested the Rams should lose purposely to try and get into the Andrew Luck sweepstakes? The notion that the Rams would tank a game to try and get the number one pick AND make that pick Andrew Luck because "they're unhappy with Bradford" is one of the more mindless scenarios out there. And an article giving it legs is even more so.

  6. #6
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Ramsfan1 View Post
    Who has suggested the Rams should lose purposely to try and get into the Andrew Luck sweepstakes? The notion that the Rams would tank a game to try and get the number one pick AND make that pick Andrew Luck because "they're unhappy with Bradford" is one of the more mindless scenarios out there. And an article giving it legs is even more so.
    Agreed. This article does nothing but pander the lowest common denominator.
    THOLTFAN81 likes this.

  7. #7
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,626
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Fortunately for us, we suck so much, we don't have to tank anything.

    Unfortunately in this scenario however, the Colts and likely the Vikings will suck just a bit more.
    Last edited by Fortuninerhater; -12-20-2011 at 06:24 PM.
    THOLTFAN81 likes this.

  8. #8
    Ram Mar Ram's Avatar
    Ram Mar Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Apia
    Age
    33
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Yeah, we have a pretty much nil chance of getting the number #1 pick, although we have a great chance to finish the season with 2 wins and i'd predict the second overall pick. with the Vikings picking up 1 of the remaining games. Might not get the bounty of trading out of the number #1 pick but there could be interest in RG3 to trade down a few slots.

    more on topic, I hardly hear (actually never) from reputable sources that we should be giving up on Bradford ... except the guys that want to bring it up and then defend Bradford, sounds like a "dont have jack to write about today so i'll take this crummy (probably fake) nugget and dust it off)

  9. #9
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    As long as we are on the topic of tanking games... lets not forget who the Colts last two opponents are. The Colts, who have dominated their division for the last ten years play, that's right, two AFC South teams- the Texans and the Jaguars.

    Now, if I was looking to do the best for my organization, losing one meaningless game in 2011 is a heck of a lot better than letting the Colts transition from the best QB of the last decade to a QB that has a good chance of being the best, if not top 5, of the next decade.

    So don't say we don't have a chance, there is always the chance.

    BTW im in the Suck for trading Luck sweepstakes.

  10. #10
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,221
    Rep Power
    108

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Blah, Blah, Blah......It's obviously very tough to write good articles for a team that continues to lose.

    Yeah let's trade down so we can draft another 40 or so tightends!!!

  11. #11
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,730
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post

    Unfortunately in this scenario however, the Colts and likely the Vikings will suck just a bit more.
    Oh god, we can't even lose well
    Ram Mar Ram likes this.

  12. #12
    Truth's Avatar
    Truth is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,397
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    As far as I see it, the best spots to be in to trade your 1st round pick are #'s 1 & 3. I'm reasonably certain the Colts would trade up to get Luck (if they needed to). Neither the Rams or Vikings are looking for a QB, and everyone in the league knows that. So, trading to the 3rd spot will probably be all a team that needs a QB wiil need to do to get their choice (except for Luck). If the Rams get the #2 pick, and Kalil is the guy every analyst seems to think he is, then I think the Rams should use the #2 to take Kalil. There are quite a few WRs coming available in FA, and many think this draft is deep in WRs. So, improving our O-line must be a priority. It won't matter who we get at WR if we don't because Sam will be on his back, or out of the game due to injury. I know we need help in the defensive backfield. But right now, I think protecting our young franchise QB MUST be a priority.

    If the Vikings get the #2 pick, I'm pretty sure they'll take kalil. At that point, we really should look at trading the #3 spot. Hopefully with either #4 Washington or #5 Jacksonville, so they could have the pick of the remaining QBs. As both of those teams need QBs, It would likely leave us Blackmon or Claiborne anyway. Trading too far down makes me uneasy, as the Rams have not had a great record in judging and drafting talent.

    Just my thoughts, and as usual they are subject to change, at any time, without notice.


    Merry Chrishannukwanza to all!!
    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!!

  13. #13
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,626
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth View Post
    As far as I see it, the best spots to be in to trade your 1st round pick are #'s 1 & 3. I'm reasonably certain the Colts would trade up to get Luck (if they needed to). Neither the Rams or Vikings are looking for a QB, and everyone in the league knows that. So, trading to the 3rd spot will probably be all a team that needs a QB wiil need to do to get their choice (except for Luck). If the Rams get the #2 pick, and Kalil is the guy every analyst seems to think he is, then I think the Rams should use the #2 to take Kalil. There are quite a few WRs coming available in FA, and many think this draft is deep in WRs. So, improving our O-line must be a priority. It won't matter who we get at WR if we don't because Sam will be on his back, or out of the game due to injury. I know we need help in the defensive backfield. But right now, I think protecting our young franchise QB MUST be a priority.

    If the Vikings get the #2 pick, I'm pretty sure they'll take kalil. At that point, we really should look at trading the #3 spot. Hopefully with either #4 Washington or #5 Jacksonville, so they could have the pick of the remaining QBs. As both of those teams need QBs, It would likely leave us Blackmon or Claiborne anyway. Trading too far down makes me uneasy, as the Rams have not had a great record in judging and drafting talent.

    Just my thoughts, and as usual they are subject to change, at any time, without notice.


    Merry Chrishannukwanza to all!!
    I think we'll have to trade further down than one or two spots to net anything worth trading down for. I certainly understand your concern of not trading down too far however, given our track record recently.

  14. #14
    Truth's Avatar
    Truth is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,397
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Burwell: 'Losing for Luck' is a stupid idea

    To be honest, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable trading any lower than 7. I think the "sure thing" talent really drops off, AND we have a really bad habit of choosing the wrong guy. Unless, of course, you're taliking about an insane Atlanta type trade down.
    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!!

Similar Threads

  1. Fix The Stupid
    By macrammer in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -09-20-2011, 01:38 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: -01-31-2011, 03:16 PM
  3. might be a stupid question...
    By thickandthin in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: -11-29-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Winner or stupid
    By smitheRAM in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -03-26-2008, 09:59 PM
  5. Stupid banners
    By LaRamsFanLongTime in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: -04-25-2007, 04:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •