Actually _this_ is the thing that has impressed me the most about Deion. He takes zero crap from his players. They all play hard, and nobody is ever in trouble. Last semester, CU student athletes had the highest semester GPA in school history - breaking the previous record set in 2023. Both at Jackson State as well as at Colorado, the guy swaggers in, promises, and damned if he doesn't deliver. Can't guarantee that unfortunately, unless we trade for the pick.
Amen brother. Every *()*#$ing year I read tanking threads and put my head in my hands. You can always get the player you want. It's all about drafting well at all spots, building a good team, a winning culture, and coaching. I mean even last year Chicago got the #1 pick by trade (by default) and Washington earned it the old fashioned way by sucking. Commanders clinch a playoff spot while the Bears are on a 10 game losing streak. Wow those Panthers really showed the Commanders in 2023, eh?
This is not entirely accurate logic. You are in fact proving the opposite point than the one you are trying to make. I mean the Commanders did get #2 overall pick by tanking, let's not lose the sight of big picture here. Houston did get #2 by tanking. Sure, they did not get #1, but what if both of these teams won an extra meaningless game or two like we did and picked where we did? There would be no Stroud, there would no Daniels for these teams. So, yes, it is needed to draft well, no argument there, but you have much more opportunity with a high pick in the draft, and the very example you gave of Washington plus a similar example in Houston conclusively proves that it is the case. But especially egregious you bring up Washington who tanked like crazy against us to get to that #2 pick that they would not allow Brissett to throw at the end when he was easily piecing us up and played prevent defense to allow us to get into FG range easily and ensure we can kick that FG at the end. They absolutely fucking tanked and got rewarded for it with Daniels. They beat us that day like they should have - they would not have Daniels and still likely suck now. So again, if your point is that tanking does not work, you just proved exactly the opposite. Again, yes you do need to pick a right player after the tank, but the opportunities are significantly worse when you win a few meaningless games at the end.
Washington didn't tank, they just sucked. There are always going to be bad teams in the NFL. Commanders hadn't had a winning record since 2015 I believe (when they went 8-7-1). They, like us, mostly always suck. Probably the same reasons. And that Houston example is also wrong. Houston fought like crazy to win the last game of the 22 season - down 7, throwing the ball and driving for a tying last-minute touchdown and then going for 2 to win the game - as a result, they dropped from the #1 to the #2 pick. They got the guy (because Carolina are idiots, agreed). But that is not the attitude of a tanking team. No, I don't agree that Washington tanked against us. "They beat us that day like they should have"? We were up by 20 points with 9:00 to go in the third quarter. From that point on, Washington's drives were Touchdown, Touchdown, Touchdown, and yes 3-and-out punt. But they didn't pass the ball on the last drive because they had the lead with 2 minutes to go and they were trying to milk clock. It was stupid playcalling, and yes, stupid prevent defense - but plenty of teams run the ball and play prevent defense when they have the lead late. That's not tanking, it's just bad coaching. If anybody was trying to tank that day, it was the SOJ - in the second half, we went Punt, Punt, Interception, Punt, Punt, Punt and FG.
Agreed with everything you wrote. Also, just to add, if they were tanking, they wouldn't have put Brissett in during the 2nd half. The starter was playing so poorly in the first half that, if they were tanking, they would have kept rolling with him.
"The starter" shouldn't have started to begin with. He was awful every game before and should have been benched to begin with. Instead he played long enough where they thought the game was out of reach, and then they put Brissett in and unexpectedly he sliced through our defense like a swiss cheese and then they told him to stop throwing as they were about to win and changed the defense to allow us to get a 3 when we could not move the ball all second half. Is it bad coaching, tanking, it sure looked like it was the later, but at the end of the day who gives a shit? Tanking is not for the most part what teams do (although I do think Washington, Jags when they were about to get Trevor, and Philly when they benched Hurtz for some scrub I haven't heard of a few years back did tank) but a mindset of the fans. The bottom line is, whether you intentionally or not tanked, if you get a better pick, you have a better opportunity. And yes, Washington and Houston did get a great opportunity to pick their QB. They win one or two more games, it does not happen. So for me as a fan, once play-offs are out of reach, I do want to get a better pick. An extra win won't do shit for this team. But a better draft pick gives a better chance to get a franchise QB or another great player. Again back to Washington or Houston example, they win a few games like against us and/or others and there is no Jayden Daniels or Stroud even available to select from. Then where would they be? Players generally won't tank, but we as fans should absolutely want Miami to win, and other results fall in a way to get us a better draft pick.
The best tank job I’ve ever seen was Bill Polian’s Colts who started…wait for it…Curtis Painter at QB all year to ensure they’d get the first pick and take Peyton. I think Bill Polian is one of the best GMs to ever do it…he built winners in Carolina, Buffalo, and Indy. Talk about a guy who knows what it takes. And he knows it takes a QB, so when he knew he needed the first pick because Peyton went back to school and decided to not play for the Jets, he got the worst possible guy to play QB. Not just for a game or two…the whole year. I listen to XM NFL Radio and he is on some shows there…one time someone called him out on that tanking bit, and his response was adamant that they were not intentionally tanking, that Painter was the guy that gave them the best chance to win. It was radio, so you couldn’t see his face, but I’m SURE he had a smile on his face the whole time. I mean, come on! Curtis Fucking Painter? The ONLY thing Painter gave him the best chance at was the #1 pick and Peyton. But man, if there were a guy like Polian around now…THAT’s who we need…that dude turned around 3 shitty franchises and made them into Super Bowl teams. Talk about knowing what it takes. HE is the guy we should be asking to lead a search.
I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. The majority of players and the majority of starters on your team next year, are already here this year. The economics of contracts and just the number of players available any year guarantees this. So, every game you tank or throw away is another game where you are building the losing culture with that majority of players. There's an old maxim that to win, you first have to learn how not to lose. Why develop a losing habit which you then have to break? I happen to believe that focusing on winning every game and every play does more to build the culture, than any marginal gain between picks. Houston in 2022 had the 30th ranked defense in the league by yards, 27th by points. In 2023 they jumped to 16th by yards, 11th by points, against a similar strength of schedule. Clearly that didn't have anything to do with the 2nd overall pick. After the first few picks, the relative value between say picks 33 and 34 is completely lost in the noise. It's all about the players you select, the coaching you have, and the culture you build in the locker room. Plus, as I have pointed out before, if you really want a player, you can always go and get him. There are innumerable examples of this, good and bad. Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, RG3, Mitch Trubisky, Paxton Lynch, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, Josh Rosen - every one of those QBs was selected high by a team that traded for that pick. Carolina went 7-10 in 2022 and Houston "tanked" to 3-13-1. Yet Carolina was able to pick before them. It's not that they couldn't get the pick, the problem is that they blew it on Bryce Young.
Polian is probably past his sell-by date now, which means he may not have the contacts and visibility across the current crop of coaches. I do agree with you that between say 1990 and 2009, he has been basically unrivaled in turning teams around. Maybe Coughlin is the other guy in that timeframe with the Jags and the Giants. But it's not about the tanking He certainly didn't tank with the Bills and the Panthers. And he didn't win anything with Luck. His turnaround with the Colts was built around Peyton - but they never won a SB until he assembled a good defense - Freeney, Mathis, Bob Sanders etc. He deserves huge props for his work there. Also he tweaked the Hoodie a few times and got the rules changed against him, which is additional brownie points in my book
I would agree between 33d and 34th the value is low. So, if we did not have a 1st round pick, then sure it does not matter that much, But at the top of the 1st round it does matter a lot. Again look at Washington. They lost to us in the most pathetic manner when they could have easily put the game away, won only 4 games. Losing habit? Not when it helped you get Daniels. All of the sudden they are not losing anymore. Whether you lose 4 games or 5, makes absolutely no difference for a culture. Players are not losing on purpose. But having Daniels sure does make a big difference in culture doesn't it? And Stroud did make a huge difference in culture too because he was a big reason they won next year, it was not just defenses, he was a huge reason. Last year we won 7 games. But what if we actually lost a few more, like to the Giants, Washington, and someone else and we picked Daniels? Imagine we picked Daniels and he sat behind Rodgers and even if he came out against Buffalo or perhaps if we had a young QB we could have brought him earlier, and played well. How excited would this franchise be for the future? How attractive would this spot be for a new GM and coach? Now of course you need to pick right, but you also need an opportunity. That opportunity comes when there is talent available in the draft and you pick high enough to get it. Noone gives a shit if we won 4 games or 7 last year. Losing is losing. As you can see winning 7 didn't help much for winning culture, did it? We still lost 10 last year, and will lose 12+ this year. But if we won 4 instead of 7, got Daniels, and even we had him debut only last Sunday for example, our fortunes could actually change very quickly.
Yeah, but we could have traded with Chicago (or in fact even Washington) and picked Daniels. Chicago didn't tank into that pick. These picks are almost always available. And if we didn't get him, Bo Nix and Michael Penix certainly seem to have played well this year, and those two were available to us for free. And to your point about how attractive the Jets would have been with Daniels - how attractive is the Carolina job right now? I'd argue that the Patsies job is probably the most attractive job in the NFL this cycle. It's not about having the pick, it's about getting the player.
Regarding your point that the picks are available. Sometimes yes, but they cost a lot. You are never 100% sure if the guy you pick high will be the franchise QB. So, it is hard to justify giving up multiple 1st to get a pick. It could really hurt your team badly. It's like not only did you miss on a top QB, you also cannot use next year's top pick. In fact that's exactly what happened to Carolina. But when you tank into it, you don't give up anything. And Chicago did tank into #1 pick a year before, that's how Carolina was able to get theirs, and they just ended with #1 pick a year later with Carolina. Like swapping the #1 picks after they both tanked into it While you are right and JD would have probably fucked up the pick even if we did get to #2, I am talking about the opportunity being there, which was not because we won a few meaningless games, which did not help culture at all as you could see. I mean can we agree on that? Winning 7 instead of 4 last year did not help create winning culture. But it could have been us with Daniels, it really could have if we won 4 games. We absolutely lucked into the Giants and Washington wins. The team was not good - we got blown out a lot and won close games that could have gone either way. These that we are now losing. We could and probably should have easily ended up with 4 wins but lucked into a few wins we didn't deserve. Again, imagine we had Daniels now coming in for Arod instead of Taylor last week? More likely he would have come in even earlier in the season, like Penix for Kirk. Would you really be upset we won 7 instead of 4 then?
