agree they need a draft lottery you should start a poll on that I’m in for it hate to see tanking being rewarded
The criticism of tanking is nonsensical — long term success sometimes requires short term failures. That’s not unique to sports, it’s common practice in business. Sometimes you take a loss in one area of your business to secure market share and build your business as a whole. And you lose money for a while until you stabilize, build a customer base and eventually leverage that market share which required a loss to establish. Video game systems are a primary example — Sony loses money on every PS5 system sold, but you do so to make the long term money of the games. that’s all tanking is — a sacrifice in one area (a single season) that you hope to leverage into long term success. There is absolutely no indication that those sacrifices are made, like cutting expensive players and not signing expensive free agents in seasons the team has identified they likely aren’t contenders, with the sole intent to lose games moreso than the intent to set them up for greater flexibility later as the moves they do make lead to improvement. If a team finishes with losing records in multiple consecutive years and their existing talent base likely doesn’t indicate that signing expensive players or keeping their existing expensive players is going to turn that around, it would be absolutely foolish to do anything but jettison those expensive players and see how your young, inexpensive players grow before making expensive personnel decisions. If a business had a money losing product, only a moron would continue to funnel money into it as it proved a failure. That’s what long term failure is in team sports. And just like a product you cut your loss and start over on a new product. that’s all tanking is — a pragmatic business decision that acknowledge past failures and attempts to correct them in a way that builds success. There is absolutely no need to change the draft process to counter smart business decisions that reflect an honest awareness of a team’s failure to that point. the 76ers may be the only exception, and by definition a single exception is not a widespread issue that needs to warrant concern and definitely doesn’t warrant changes to existing systems to combat.
Sorry but I’d be happy if that were the Jets and we let Buffalo in instead of Miami or New England while also getting a better draft pick. The Eagles simply did what was best for their franchise...the players may be upset right now but I’m sure they’ll get over it during the offseason It’s funny how no one cares that the Steelers benched players against the Browns which also affected the playoffs. I get the difference but if you’re going to complain about not trying to win at all costs it should be across the board
Tanking is tanking. It doesn't matter if it's one quarter, one game, or all 16 games. It's still wrong for a team to do. As much as I wanted the #1 pick, I would have been totally upset if Douglas had tanked, and wanted him fired. I believe in Karma. I think if we had intentionally tanked, our bad luck would have continued. I think Douglas did the right thing, and I'm glad things worked out the way they did. ng players some experience and enable themselves to better evaluate those young players.
Good post. I don't totally agree, but think you make some very good points. IMO there's a thin line between "tanking" and making other moves to try to help your team. Resting players before the playoffs is fine. Playing young players at the end of a losing season to get them some experience or evaluate them in game action is fine. Clearing cap space by trading older, more expensive players that aren't part of the future is fine. Being efficient and responsible with the cap by not going crazy every year spending a ton of money when you know your team isn't very good and it won't make much difference is fine. I don't like the idea of players or HCs "Tanking" however. That's like throwing a game because of a bet. I think if an owner or GM ordered the team to tank a whole season or a major part of a season, is not right, and it would cause a lot of resentment by the players, coaches and fanbase. Tanking a game or two or a quarter may seem harmless and while it may be a good business decision, it goes against the grain of what sports are all about, i.e., sportsmanship, fair play, trying to win, etc. One of the Eagles' players released a video and was saying that he thinks the team should try to win every game regardless of their record and he doesn't think it's acceptable to give younger players experience or teams to evaluate players at the end of losing seasons in their last few games. I say BS to that. If he doesn't like it, to freaking bad. As you say, it's a business. Teams need to get some answers about young players before the offseason, and if they have a losing record and aren't going to the playoffs, they'd be stupid not to get those you
The concept behind the draft process is that the weaker the team is, the better draft pick they will get, since they need it more. If people are clearly tanking all the time, the standings do not accurately represent which teams are truly weaker, and therefore the concept itself becomes false and therefore needs to change. Basically NFL has the fairest system, but there is a loophole here, and if it is not abused, it's fine, but if it is abused a lot, it needs to be closed. Pederson did abuse it, and he made it very obvious. If enough people start doing this, they will change the rule. Then the system will need to change, it will not be the fairest anymore, but the loophole will be closed. It's not going to be good for the League. Up until now teams who "tanked" did it a lot more subtly. Resting a player a bit longer off injury when he otherwise would play. Making a trade to get a pick swap for next year, even though it weakens you this year. Not playing your best players at the most important position when they are fully healthy, sitting right there, because you want to give some playing time to 3d string scrub with game on the line is on a different level of abuse. Is it enough to change the rule? Probably not yet. They did this in NBA, where the worst team is not guaranteed to get #1 overall. In football this wasn't changed because there are not too many examples of clear and obvious tanking. But things like what Pederson did if repeated often enough will make things worse for the entire NFL.
Not sure that it's a "smart" business decision. Some could argue that its dumb and self-defeating. We're still waiting for the first "tanking" team to make a quick turnaround and play in a Super Bowl based upon the player they tanked to draft. And what you said about jettisoning older expensive players and playing younger players is not tanking. It's called rebuilding. Tanking is doing everything possible to avoid winning, as Jacksonville did this year and the Eagles did in the fourth quarter. The spectre of a team tanking hurts the league.
What is the difference between that and KC resting Mahomes for a game? I presume they must have rested some others as well?
You’re going to have to define tanking, then, in which it doesn’t incorporate the same dynamics as rebuilding, otherwise we are just having a semantic debate saying the same thing but calling it by a different name. And not winning a Super Bowl doesn’t mean tanking doesn’t work if the tanking results in some identifiable level of success. If we simply argue winning a Super Bowl as the only metric of success, most teams don’t win Super Bowls for prolonged periods of time in which they don’t tank and thus you’d have to criticize not-tanking and not winning the same as tanking and not winning.
As I said, tanking is doing everything possible to lose to get a particular draft pick, like what the Indy Colts did to get Luck, or what the Jags did this year. There really haven't been too many obvious instances of a team affirmatively trying to lose until the last 20 years or so, but you definitely have to look at the 2008 Lions for Stafford, the 2017 Browns, the Bucs and Titans in 2014 for Winston/Mariota, and the Colts for Luck in 2011, to name a few. The Eagles definitely tanked in the 4th quarter on Sunday. In a tank, you begin your rebuild the year after you tank, presumably with your number one pick as a foundation. It is not the same as losing with younger players through a rebuild, because in a rebuild your immediate intention is to win, even if you are not immediately successful. As far as your contention that winning the Super Bowl is NOT the only metric of success following a tank, there are a number of prominent posters on this site who would vehemently disagree with you, especially for a team like the Jets, who are 51 years and counting since their last Super Bowl appearance. You can ask the Browns fans about what their metric for success is if they don't get to a Super Bowl with Mayfield. Ask Knick fans how they feel about the Ewing years. (I know, basketball, but still...). How hostile would Jet fans be if we got Lawrence and went on a nice run of 3 play-off appearances in a row (something we've never accomplished) but DIDN'T make a Super Bowl.
Of course I wanted them to lose out at some point this year but realistically I knew they would never tank on purpose and shame on those who called out players directly for it. With that said it pisses me off that the Jets are the butt of every joke and that they make it seem like it’s a circus here. We may be inept in our decision making but you got to praise the team for not giving up when it was all said and done. If anything with Douglas leading the way and a team of good locker room guys, this should be a top spot for coaches to land whether they realize it or not.
I will say it again. Any 6-10 team crying what another team did because they didn't make the playoffs is a fukn joke. This is where we're at today folks. No accountability. You did a shit job and choose to blame someone else instead of taking the high road and worrying about your squad. vaGIANTS look like a bunch of 5 year olds acting like they got robbed of something they never earned.
As a Knick fan who has seen lottery movement do nothing but worsen the pick of an already bad team for the last 35 years straight, I say, "be careful what you wish for".
There is a big difference between deliberately losing to secure a specific draft pick, which is how I define tanking, and what the Jets did imo. The Jets purged the roster of players who were not part of the future, getting what they could in return and clearing as much cap space as possible, when it was clear that the season was dead in the water. That's not tanking, that's taking a business decision based on long/medium term rewards rather than short term ones ( which you know are going to be poor anyway). Its just sensible. You are still playing the best players you have available and trying to win, it's just they arent likely to. Deliberate tanking is in my imo a very slippery slope to go down. Not because of league competitiveness, though that is a factor too, but it gives your players an excuse to lose. It gives them an excuse to give 90% and go through the motions. It says you don't care about winning and that is something that is very hard to eradicate from an organisation. It's like a cancer - you're not quite sure where it has spread to and where or when it will resurface. The whole roster has to be purged to be certain you've got rid of it. The Jets didn't tank and tried to win, they just weren't very good. The Eagles, while also not good, could possibly have tanked that game. It was just one game so the long term ramifications might not be massive, but it will be interesting to see.
I agree with you about your definition of "tanking" vs rebuilding. I don't think the Jets intended to "tank" this season, but everything snowballed as Gase's incompetence became more obvious and the losses mounted. But if they were truly tanking, they wouldn't have won the two late season games. And even though the Jets, apparently, will not get Lawrence, I'm glad they don't have to deal with the ramifications of 0-16.
