Losing for a high draft pick is bad Kool Aid

When a team’s season goes sideways, you hear the age old question, “Do you continue to try winning games or do you continue to lose games to attain a higher draft pick?”

In the NFL, you heard slogans like “Suck for Luck” in reference to the Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck, who wound up getting drafted No. 1 overall by the Indianapolis Colts in 2012. The other popular slogan was “Blow It Off For Goff” in reference to California quarterback Jared Goff, who was drafted No. 1 overall by the Los Angeles Rams in 2016.

Most NFL mock drafts believe that USC’s Sam Darnold and UCLA’s Josh Rosen, both of whom are quarterbacks. After Sunday’s NFL action, the winless Cleveland Browns and 2-10 New York Giants are slated for the top two picks. The San Francisco 49ers are also 2-10 but the Giants would get the higher pick based on a head-to-head loss to the 49ers. San Francisco, however, may not be in the market for a quarterback in the first round based on its recent trade for New England backup Jimmy Garoppolo.

Teams that try to lose employ a strategy known as “tanking.” I have been on my soapbox for years against that approach. While I understand the fans’ excitement for potentially drafting a great player, it is also Fool’s Gold. You are pinning your hopes on a player that has yet to play nary a down in the NFL. Translation, the player is just as likely to become a bust as well as an All-Pro. Granted, the term “bust” is a subjective definition but you get the idea.

The “lose for a higher draft choice” approach is also flawed because no self-respecting professional (front office, coach, player) is going to purposely attempt to lose games because they have livelihoods to keep afloat, just like any working class professional in society. It’s pretty simple, you fail at your job, you won’t have one.

Also, if a team has a bad win-loss record, they don’t need to “try” to lose games, they have proven they are bad enough to lose games on their own merit. If your team is, say 3-13, chances are you do not have just one area of weakness on your roster, you likely have several.

The constant narrative one hears is that teams that are consistently bad a) should eventually get their pick right and b) as how could a team be so bad for so long that they are picking that high?

Therein also lies the answer. For openers, I don’t give a damn if a team is picking first or 21st, they’d better get it right because first round draft picks command a lot of money, some more so than others. Secondly, any competent front office and scouting staff will generally get more picks right than not regardless of draft position.