Is tanking real?

[adamq]

1 hour ago, Danger said:

2020 Eagles, Week 17 against Washington

 

It was pretty obvious 

The ripples from that are fascinating. Does DP get fired if they try, and how does that change the trajectory of Philly and Jax from that point on...

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, Forge said:

I think designing a team to be bad is real. 

Once you're on the field, playing the games, I do not believe tanking is real 

This is the correct answer.  Coaches and players don't participate in tanking because it's not in their interest.  Players need to perform at a high level to secure high end contracts, so they're not gonna agree to play badly on purpose in any scenario.  Coaches get fired for losing, so they don't either.  Even if a head coach could agree, based on a multiyear contract or owner assurance or something, all their assistants and position coaches would still be trying to stand out to get their units to look good and secure promotions and whatnot.

[Broncofan]

8 hours ago, Forge said:

I think designing a team to be bad is real. 

Once you're on the field, playing the games, I do not believe tanking is real 

 

5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I honestly don’t think it does on the field. They get too sick of losing, they’re too proud, they have performance incentives, they are being trash talked etc 

 

but in the board room, sure! As above examples

 

5 hours ago, notthatbluestuff said:

0% chance it happens on the field. It's all done at a management level, but I don't think the thinking from GMs is as simple as "let's tank for this one player" so much as it's a mindset of "let's strip the roster and acquire assets (including picks acquired through trade and high picks through draft position) to build for the future." Losing is simply a short-term consequence. Look at Philly's Process Sixers - now, whether the Process was ultimately a "success" is another question entirely.

 

2 hours ago, Danger said:

2020 Eagles, Week 17 against Washington

 

It was pretty obvious 

 

12 minutes ago, Daniel said:

This is the correct answer.  Coaches and players don't participate in tanking because it's not in their interest.  Players need to perform at a high level to secure high end contracts, so they're not gonna agree to play badly on purpose in any scenario.  Coaches get fired for losing, so they don't either.  Even if a head coach could agree, based on a multiyear contract or owner assurance or something, all their assistants and position coaches would still be trying to stand out to get their units to look good and secure promotions and whatnot.

 

Basically the above - 2017 Week 17 PHI can be explained easily by the fact it was a call from the FO.    

FO's have no problem decimating the team's current-win chances to get better in the future - but coaches & players don't have the luxury to tank.  You get film where you're not giving 100 percent effort, other teams won't be interested in signing you in future years.  And because the current year is bad, there's a strong chance you're looking for work next offseason.   So it matters a ton.   And that's before we get past the players & coaches' human nature to win - that competitiveness is part of what got them there for 98+ percent of the players/coaches.    You don't turn that off.

Don't get me wrong, if it's a lost year, the FO and fans can live with L's knowing it helps their future.  But zero chance players & coaches accept this.  And that's fine.

[jebrick]

I think Cleveland tanked when they dumped their talent for draft picks.  I thought their GM basically said they were tanking for picks.

[stl4life07]

Yes tanking is real. In the NBA where there is a lottery teams still blatantly lose just to increase their odds with the lottery balls to get a chance at the top pick. Last year was a perfect example in order to get Wemby. I dont even think Pop would still be coaching right now if the Spurs didnt get the top pick to get Wemby. 

In the NFL where there is no lottery teams can really tank bc they know if they are the worst team they will automatically get the top pick. I do think what will stop teams from tanking or at least some of them is if those prospects start to say no to certain organizations. Like Caleb might not want to go to the Cards. So while the Cards are deciding whether or not they want to move forward with Murray they might not have a choice if Caleb says no he dont want to go to the Cards if they get the 1st pick. Maybe the Cards might have to pivot and either keep Murray or trade the pick to a team Caleb might want to go too for assets and build from there. They could trade Murray move down and go get a Drake Maye who might be willing to go to the Cards. So just things to keep in mind. But I do think tanking is very real.

[scar988]

9 hours ago, Forge said:

I think designing a team to be bad is real. 

Once you're on the field, playing the games, I do not believe tanking is real 

Yeah, Tanking is more of a personnel thing than a true coaching thing. 

GM's will set up bad rosters that will end up being bad. It happens.

Coaches always try to win. That way, when the team is competitive in 15-16 games, but loses 15-16 games, it's ok and they can stick around. (especially if it's year 1 of their tenure).

[BetterCallSaul]

By GM's? Yes.

By coaches & players? No.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Indy had the most obvious tank ever the year before they drafted Andrew Luck. The list of QB's they played was criminal.

[WheatieMan]

No guaranteed contracts expect for franchise QBs or rare talents, so tanking will never be a problem in this league. There are the week 17/18 strategic tanks no question, but everyone here already summed it up.

[fluhartz]

2 hours ago, BetterCallSaul said:

By GM's? Yes.

By coaches & players? No.

yep

[Soko]

12 hours ago, nagahide13 said:

2011 Colts had Peyton Manning and were coming off of a 10-6 season winning the division. They had made the playoffs 9 years in a row. Saying that Irsay tanked would imply that he knew Peyton Manning was going to sit out the entire 2011 season then leave for a new team (and still didn't put him on IR) and that nobody else did. It also implies that he knew that replacing Manning with a scrub would go from a playoff team to the #1 overall pick in the draft.

In 2010 they were 25th on defense (points) and 4th on offense (points).

It seems more likely that the team expected Peyton back and thought he'd carry them to a few wins.

 

I think that tanking is a bit of a red herring. Owners and fans talk about it, but FO and players just don't do it to the extent we expect.

They didn’t expect Peyton back. Peyton had neck surgery in the offseason and then never “got right”, before doctors telling him he’d need an additional surgery that could end his career. That was all before Week 1, and the injury itself happened before their bye week the season prior. His injury and its severity weren't a secret. They said themselves that the reason he was never put on IR was so that he could be around the facility and potentially practice. Irsay and Polian said they weren’t going to put Peyton out there. 

The defense was dog water in 2010. Take away your HOF QB and replace him with 3 guys that would very soon find themselves out of the NFL, switch three offensive linemen out, now you’ve got a dog water offense too. Not rocket science.

[Kiwibrown]

14 hours ago, Forge said:

I think designing a team to be bad is real. 

Once you're on the field, playing the games, I do not believe tanking is real 

Coaches and players don't tank. Front offices are more strategic about team building. 

[Tank4Drake]

There’s too many people in an organization to do a planned tanking, players would find out. But as someone else said, do FO’s indirectly tank? You bet your *** they do. Strip the team of everything, and hope the team wins 3 games. I think that was the Texans plan last year. Although Lovie gave them a big F U in the final game. And clearly was the Cardinals FO plan coming into the season. The coaches and players are trying to win, but the FO decided before the season started they’d rather tank and try to get a Franchise QB. 

[Duluther]

It’s weird how people think it’s beneficial to ruin team chemistry and derail players’ development to get a shot at a couple better lottery picks.

You gotta get your players their weekly xp.

[Warhorse]

Tanking is a metaphor, used by misinformed fans, to assuage the need for order, in a chaotic and unpredictable sport. 

Positioning by front offices to increase income, release debt, increase player acquisition opportunities and like is absolutely real. Coaches and players have nothing to do with it.