You're not too logical are you? The Browns are about to go winless. The Lions did go winless. Do you really think selling their moneymakers ever came across these billionaires minds because of a shitty year?
Are we doing this on purpose to get high draft picks? Or are we really that bad? I'm not sure. I can't really figure this thing out. I mean watching this team, why does it seem like completing a pass is some mystical event that mere mortals cannot fathom without divine intervention from the gods! I watch teams this weekend like the Ravens, and the Chargers and Raiders and they function like clockwork as they move up the field. But with my team, it looks so difficult and painful watching them move up the field. And what about the defense? It's an insult to my intelligence to think that this Defense, a group of human beings, who get up in the morning everyday, punch in, and sit in class rooms and practice on the fields everyday, getting paid millions, while being lead by a head coach who specialize in defense, who even played defense and won a super bowl, can be THIS BAD! It's an insult. These guys got to be tanking on purpose! Look at all the talent we got. I think we are just laying down. I think that since Fitzpatrick sucks whale semen and the wheels fell off at the quarterback position, the rest of the team is like "fuck it" in my opinion.
Players don't want a high draft pick....it puts some of them on the curb looking for a job. Players DO quit playing hard just because, well, it's hard. They're not thinking too far ahead. They just wanna get off the field and back home to their video games on a warm couch.
Its stupid for players to coast here They all have a market value that goes up and down based on performance But of course we have plenty of stupid players
You obviously don't get it. It depends upon the situation. If a HC knows that he could get fired that year, then no he wouldn't tank. If he knows he'll be back at least one more year, and in a year such as this that is already lost, another win or two means nothing, why not if he knows that next year will be no better unless they get the QB or pass rusher they need. Conversely, if losing that extra game or two means they could get a QB or pass rusher that could dramatically change things for the team in the future and as a result, they'd quite likely win three or four more games each year because of that player, some would do it. Also, I would think that usually it would be the owner or GM that would order the HC to tank. Most HCs probably wouldn't tank on their own. If they were assured their job was secure and knew it could solve their problems for the future, some would do it, even though they might find it distasteful.
I don't think this team ever had a choice in this. The talent level sans the dline simply is not there to be competitive with the elite of this division let along the conference. The Jets aren't tanking, they're simply a bad football devoid of talent at critical positions and the sidelines. The Jets don't have to tank, all they have to do is show up and play. We already know what the outcome will be anyway.
Oh, I get it. I just find it hard to believe most coaches would do it. It all sounds great, but the fact is, these guys are judged on their records. I guess it's possible, I just have a hard time swallowing it. Maybe I don't get it ...who knows. Maybe, thinking they tank for better spots makes you delusional. Has any team ever admitted to doing such? I'm thinking not. So it's just conjecture.
Evan Roberts made a good point on WFAN today. Jets have been unlucky in being bad in the wrong years. Can't miss QB prospect coming out of college?? Jets are winning games. No clearly defined top player at the top?? Jets are in the top 5
I don't think it could be just "luck." If nothing else, I would think that the law of averages would suggest that sooner or later the Jets would have had good luck and gotten that QB. They haven't. Then again, there's also the idea that one creates one's own luck through preparation, making the right moves, and/or through karma. With the boob owners the Jets have had, and the bad hires they've made, the Jets have created a lot of bad karma or bad luck, so maybe it is possible that it's just bad "luck."
You're probably right that "most" coaches wouldn't do it. I do think that "some" would. Yes, they're judged on their records, but they're also judged on whether they're just looking after #1 or doing what's best for the teams that are paying their salary. In the specific case of the Jets, with the season all but over and Fitz sucking, Bowles sticking with Fitz rather than going with Geno or Petty sooner was purely a stupid and selfish move. Fitz did NOT give the team the best chance to win, and it was doing nothing for the team to help them see if Petty could be their QB next season. Once the season was over, the #1 thing the Jets needed to find out was whether or not Petty could possibly start next year, or if they would need to bring in a JAG vet to start or possibly draft a QB. Bowles compounded the issue with stating that he wanted to go with Petty but was afraid that he'd lose the team if he did. A competent HC who is in command and control would not lose the team regardless of what he did. He didn't do what was best for the team. The Jets winning another game or two with Fitz would have meant absolutely nothing. Even being based on their records, 4-12 or even 5-11 is not appreciably better than 3-13, especially considering the ways that they've lost the games. As I said in my last post, I don't think that most would do it on their own, though I think some would. I think that some teams have tanked, and when they have, probably the owner or GM ordered it rather than the HC coming up with the idea on his own.
It's hard to believe because it never happens. One case in 40 years of the Colts benching players in the last two games of the season to assure that they got Luck. That's about the only case where it's ever happened. Not to mention that even if teams were to tank, they wouldn't do it for any longer than ensuring that they lose the last game or two. To insinuate that a franchise would purposely start losing the last 5-6 games of the year is just absurd. It's a gigantic health risk, players are often fighting for their jobs or their next contract in these dubbed 'meaningless games.' You think Rontez Miles and Bilal Powell aren't still playing hard? Justin Burris, Jordan Jenkins? These guys are trying to earn starting spots. If a coach told them they need to lose they'd probably tell said coach to shove that statement right up his ass. I'm trying to maintain my job and career in the NFL. The average NFL career is about 3.3 years. To think these guys would do anything to jeopardize that is asinine. Think about it too. The average NFL career is 3.3 years and tons of players do not graduate with a degree. Some skate through college knowing they'll get drafted even if it's in the later rounds and all they know is football. They now have that aforementioned 3.3 years to try to earn a salary that they need to try to make last half a lifetime. They are not losing games on purpose so the New York Jets can pick 3rd instead of 6th. So can we end this stupid ass discussion? This isn't the NBA, where tanking obviously doesn't really work either especially with the lottery (see; 76ers, Philadelphia).
Get serious, will ya? I asked you in the other "Tank" thread how this would happen and how they would keep it secret; I notice you didn't respond. Can the coach really do it on his own without telling anyone else on the team? Is there any possible way this wouldn't be on the cover of Sports Illustrated the week of the Super Bowl? This is fantasy land and you sound like Peter Pan.
The 49ers were clearly in tank mode in the 2nd half against the Jets. 4-12 can't get here fast enough.
I wholeheartedly agree. It makes no sense. Everyone risking their careers, for a prospect. A prospect that often doesn't even pan out. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
There's the old adage - if two people know a secret, one must die, to keep it a secret. I highly doubt this shit goes on.
How often does a team suck bad enough to get the #1 pick in the draft and not fire their GM or at least their HC? Serious question. I'd like to see the stats on it. I think it would tell us a lot about whether or not tanking happens, and if so, who is responsible.
Really? You mean like RG3 (traded for), Goff (traded for), Wentz (traded for), Paxton Lynch (who we could have drafted)? You can almost always trade for the guy you want. Why rely on your draft position? This is just wrong.
