I think people overestimate the impact of the #1 pick. For example, what happens if there is not a player you deem worthy of the #1 pick when the draft comes out? BTW, that's the main reason I don't release the draft class any earlier than the postseason. Even if you get the star player you're looking for, it's unlikely that one player is going to have a huge impact on your team, and remember he's going to be expensive, which means less room for other quality players (especially in 0.4.1).

To me, people are going to tank, and it's unfortunate, but also difficult to prove intent, and frankly, I'd rather spend my time making sure other factors (such as the economics or players becoming angry that you aren't playing them) don't make it worth the effort.

As for teams messing up the playoff picture because of tanking/checking out, well, that happens in real life too. Usually more because the team is resting its starters for the playoffs, but I know not every bad team is motivated to play spoiler near the end of the season, especially if there is turmoil in the ranks.

Experienced owners don't go 0-16 unless they are actively trying to even with retirements. Even if you have a roster full of 70s and low 80s and less you're probably going to win 2-4 games just off of catching a favorable sim or two or playing some teams that are worse. Most standard leagues you can end up with a shot at the playoffs simply by loading up on fast players with low overalls.

I'll admit that I've done it, but it was after a cap-induced fire-sale due to the fact that the team I took over had a multitude of dead cap space and several horrible free agent choices that were given max contracts. It's really difficult to spend time on a team knowing you're going to be languishing in mediocrity forever due to the past decisions of someone else.

I honestly don't mind tanking if the owner plans on keeping the team for years. Mainly because so many teams have been eviscerated by awful trading/collusion and need some kind of boost to rebuild from, otherwise they will be losers indefinitely.

But now that I see the negative outcry I will almost certainly never do it again. I honestly didn't realize there was such a stigma that surrounds it, seeing as I've heard numerous owners discussing tanking in a nonchalant manner.

I believe in letting owners do with their team what they want but for me i'm so competitive that i couldn't let myself tank. I try to win every game and can't imagine sitting through a losing season. I guess if owners have a ton of teams it doesn't matter but for me it would be brutal. I also think that the draft doesn't always produce a single player that is so much better than the other top guys that it's worth it. If a team is so bad that they can't win a single game it's going to take much more than a top pick. On a side note, if you have a team with a consistent winning record and they get old or retire it's on the owner for not planning for it. Always draft and build a roster with a couple years in the future on your mind. I've had some teams picking late in the draft consistently and i always draft for future so i'm not in the situation where your team has no talent. I think it's harder to go 0-16 than it is to go 16-0

I think there's a distinction between a good team "tanking" for a good draft pick and enacting a fire sale when you gain a new team. I'll use myself as an example - I recently took control of the Giants in 66, and I noticed that the AI had signed a lot of mediocre players that don't even fit my scheme to long-term contracts. So even though it created *a lot* of dead cap space, I cut pretty much all of them. I figure that it's better to rip the band-aid off and suffer two years of no cap space and 4-12 than languish at 8-8 like Jeff Fischer. But if the NFC champion, for instance, suddenly went 4-12, that would raise eyebrows. And I think the latter is what people are concerned with.

Fair enough. And in that case I'd find the tanking puzzling. It isn't worth sacrificing a year's worth of experience in the secondary and backfield to grab another top pick...

...because at that point you're probably going to use it on the secondary or backfield.

There's a huge difference in taking over a crappy team and completely gutting it. I will say that i did that exact thing and instead of trying to lose i turned over every rock and am trying my hardest to get production out of low rated players. I was mostly talking about a veteran owner that has been playing for awhile. If you try to win every game there's a very slim chance you will go 0-16. I'm not saying it can't happen but in my opinion, it's harder to go winless than undefeated

The point is the #1 Overall isn't going to turn a Team around by itself.

To do that, you have to Firesale for Picks... and then your Multitude of Picks turns your Franchise around.

Anyone losing for the #1 Overall WITHOUT also selling pieces to acquire more Draft Capital... is only screwing themselves.

how often do you see teams giving up tons of picks for the top pick in mfn? I haven't seen it very much maybe once or twice.

Depends on where they are trying to move up from.

I gave a haul to Trade for the LBs selected 5th and 6th Overall in MFN-7 (I selected another LB 7th).

I gave that haul because I correctly assumed those 3 Players in tandem would be worth more to me than my next 2 Seasons of Picks. So I sent Future 1st, 2nd and 3rds to acquire them for the next 2 Seasons. I went 2 Years without a Draft Pick in the first 3 Rounds... but to me, it was worth it.

Now, that Team is heading to the Championship Game (to face the 16-0 Seattle of KoB). It's going there on the back of those 3 LBs (one converted to DE) that each get 20+ Sacks a Season now, and my very first Draft Pick ever, a TE I converted to RB that's finally paying off 5 Seasons later.

That was my first 2 Drafts... picking 7th because I took over a fairly bad team, then selling the farm the next Draft to set my Defense for a Decade.

Now, none of that was for the 1st... but if those LBs had been selected 1st and 2nd I'd have still went after then in Trade. I tried to get the 1st Pick for Bolden (the LB that went 5th) but was turned down.

But remember, I don't believe the 1st Overall really matters. I think you need MULTIPLE High Picks in a good Draft Year, so you can have all those guys in their Prime at the same time.

So I wouldn't use the Current 1st to move up to #1 Overall, I'd try to use Future Picks to do that, and keep my Current 1st with it. Otherwise, it's not worth it for me (if Building a Team).

Now if I have a Built Team... and I covet a specific player at a Position of Need... sure, I sell the farm to move up and secure him. Because another WR on a Team with 4 All Pros isn't going to help me, but getting that CB I'm missing will. So I need a specific Player, not just a good player.

Most MFN Teams have a lot of holes, so the difference in 1st and 10th doesn't matter, you'll walk out with a good Player and your Team is improved. But some teams are more built and have very specific needs, and if they want the Top guy at that Need, they have to pay to move up and get him.