Jump to content

Is Tanking Explicitly Against The Rules?


the lone star

Recommended Posts

I think how the NBA works where 1 or 2 players can turn a franchise completely around can encourage a team to pursue a higher draft position which means it encourages losing/tanking for an already crappy or rebuilding team.

In the NFL, it's different where 1 or 2 players won't turn your franchise around and turn a crap team into playoff/contender type of team, you need 2 or 3 years of solid drafting and some key free agent pickups along with a good coaching staff to turn it all around.

Put Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Donald on the Browns and they probably STILL do not make the playoffs. This is why you don't really see teams deliberately losing so they can move 3 or 4 spots higher in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Please tell me you don’t believe that Colts team was honestly trying to do their best....

The whole 'suck for Luck" myth was a media driven campaign to sell article views and unfortunately people bought into it. Even in hindsight.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

The whole 'suck for Luck" myth was a media driven campaign to sell article views and unfortunately people bought into it. Even in hindsight.... 

Go on and on about media narratives or whatever else crosses your mind.

It’s an unbelievable sell that the Colts were actually out there to win games fielding Collins, Painter, and Orlovsky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Go on and on about media narratives or whatever else crosses your mind.

It’s an unbelievable sell that the Colts were actually out there to win games fielding Collins, Painter, and Orlovsky. 

Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, McAfee and Vinatieri all disagree. 

What exactly did any player or staff member individually gain by tanking? The Staff was canned and 90% of the players were gone just 18 months later.

You're kidding yourself if you think the entire team just gave up and wasn't trying. These players have incentives in their contract that if they get X amounts of yards, int's, TD's....they get a hefty bonus. So why the hell would they not only throw that money away, but do it for a team that, if they suck, they won't reap the benefits from in the first place because they will be out of a job. At that point, why the hell would they care if the Colts get the next Peyton or not? If anything, they would try to prevent the team from getting a prospect like that because that would mean one less opponent for them to worry about having to play.

And before you go all "well it was the staff that was tanking", you really think Caldwell and Polian were going to risk their jobs? Or better yet, do you really think it's a believable sell to suggest that Caldwell and the entire staff spent hours a week on scheming as to ways to put their players in the worst possible scenarios and situations? You realize how asinine that sounds? FYI, Caldwell lost his job that year(IIRC). So what did he have to gain?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

You're kidding yourself if you think the entire team just gave up and wasn't trying.

Yeah...kinda sorta never said that. 

Anyway. You would have to assume a few things if you're on board with the belief that they didn't tank - some blatantly wrong, some possible but not definite:

1) Caldwell and Polian knew that they'd be fired after a bad season. Caldwell, as a fresh HC, was coming off two playoff seasons (one SB appearance) and a 24-8 record. Polian's resume speaks for itself. It's not far fetched at all that the two would expect leniency after losing their HOF QB for the season. 

2) Nobody has anything to gain. Even if we assumed #1 was the case, and that Polian/Caldwell had no reason to lose purposely because they knew they'd be fired, that doesn't mean there isn't anyone that benefits at all. The egotistical guy who owns the team might have a small say.

3) All players have to be consciously underperforming or not giving effort for a tank to be a tank. Not the case. You must think HOF GM Bill Polian is some sort of moron for fielding that QB trio with that talent and expecting to win games. 

4) That Caldwell had to scheme the team to lose for it to be a tank. Sort of in line with #3, all it takes is the insertion of a few incompetent players into the lineup to really screw things up - or in their case, just refusing to make any real efforts to improve. 

5) That Caldwell and Polian just did the best they could with the talent on that roster. Haha!

6) Manning was the driving force of the team. This I actually agree with - I just don't think a 10-6 team goes to 2-14, then with a rookie QB (and a fairly re-loaded roster) goes 11-5, just from QB play. I've seen enough better QBs with worse records and worse QBs with better records to know that a good team is still good without elite QB play. Sure, you could say it's because the drop off was huge with the garbage that the 2011 Colts trot out onto the field, but that sort of supports #3 and #4.

You might even point out the 2017 Packers (even they managed to go 3-7) as evidence that sometimes teams don't make any drastic moves after an injury. True, sometimes they don't, but at least in their case they had a backup that was thought to be promising. Same with 2008 Patriots. Hell, the Colts themselves went out and made a trade this year despite not having much to gain, just so they could put some sort of product onto the field. 

All of this doesn't prove anything. Frankly nothing I, or really anybody, can produce (short of some sort of video or audio recording) will prove the 2011 Colts did or didn't tank. I don't even like Caldwell as a HC (he screams average IYAM) or Polian (waaaay overrated), but they're not 2-14-without-Manning-level bad. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not an issue like it is in the NBA, because in the NBA, it’s extremely rare to get a franchise player even in the second half of the first round. Second rounders don’t usually even turn into starters. In the NFL, you can still have an excellent draft without picking high. Maybe the greatest quarterback in NFL history (Nick Foles) was taken 88th. Tom Brady, another QB who’s had a bit of success was taken 199th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it technically is against the rules. From that passing story about how the Packers were skirting the rules by shutting Rodgers down after they were mathematically limited, there were some tidbits about teams supposed to field the best possible team to winning games. 

Clearly there isn't/won't be any enforcement of it. The best protections is like others have said that players and coaches don't care about draft positioning. Losing hurts them and more draft capital equals more chances to be replaced as a player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

 

Yeah...kinda sorta never said that. 

Anyway. You would have to assume a few things if you're on board with the belief that they didn't tank - some blatantly wrong, some possible but not definite:

1) Caldwell and Polian knew that they'd be fired after a bad season. Caldwell, as a fresh HC, was coming off two playoff seasons (one SB appearance) and a 24-8 record. Polian's resume speaks for itself. It's not far fetched at all that the two would expect leniency after losing their HOF QB for the season. 

2) Nobody has anything to gain. Even if we assumed #1 was the case, and that Polian/Caldwell had no reason to lose purposely because they knew they'd be fired, that doesn't mean there isn't anyone that benefits at all. The egotistical guy who owns the team might have a small say.

3) All players have to be consciously underperforming or not giving effort for a tank to be a tank. Not the case. You must think HOF GM Bill Polian is some sort of moron for fielding that QB trio with that talent and expecting to win games. 

4) That Caldwell had to scheme the team to lose for it to be a tank. Sort of in line with #3, all it takes is the insertion of a few incompetent players into the lineup to really screw things up - or in their case, just refusing to make any real efforts to improve. 

5) That Caldwell and Polian just did the best they could with the talent on that roster. Haha!

6) Manning was the driving force of the team. This I actually agree with - I just don't think a 10-6 team goes to 2-14, then with a rookie QB (and a fairly re-loaded roster) goes 11-5, just from QB play. I've seen enough better QBs with worse records and worse QBs with better records to know that a good team is still good without elite QB play. Sure, you could say it's because the drop off was huge with the garbage that the 2011 Colts trot out onto the field, but that sort of supports #3 and #4.

You might even point out the 2017 Packers (even they managed to go 3-7) as evidence that sometimes teams don't make any drastic moves after an injury. True, sometimes they don't, but at least in their case they had a backup that was thought to be promising. Same with 2008 Patriots. Hell, the Colts themselves went out and made a trade this year despite not having much to gain, just so they could put some sort of product onto the field. 

All of this doesn't prove anything. Frankly nothing I, or really anybody, can produce (short of some sort of video or audio recording) will prove the 2011 Colts did or didn't tank. I don't even like Caldwell as a HC (he screams average IYAM) or Polian (waaaay overrated), but they're not 2-14-without-Manning-level bad. 

 

 

I am not going to go any further into this debate. If you wanna believe that they "tanked" then by all means use your right to an opinion.

There is, however, one thing that you are not seeing here in regards to your comparison to ROdgers/Packers this year and Polian being overrated without Peyton. What your missing is the fact that those teams' coaches schemes/approaches to a game were built heavily around Rodgers/Manning based on what their unique skill sets offered, which is a once in a generation type. Losing a player of that caliber would destroy any franchise in any given season. Furthermore, you calling Polian overrated is slap in the face.

And before I hear about "well look at the Patriots without Brady" type of comments......save it. (not talking to you personally Yin-Yang, just in general. You know how this forum can work sometimes) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Browns last season come to mind, they drafted a QB, Kizer in round 2 and threw him to the wolves right out of the gate and stuck with him through a 0-16 season. IMO, they definitely tanked the season on purpose as their GM tried to rebuild the franchise, thinking foolishly, that the owner had guaranteed him 5 years to get the job done and he paid the price!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

I think it technically is against the rules. From that passing story about how the Packers were skirting the rules by shutting Rodgers down after they were mathematically limited, there were some tidbits about teams supposed to field the best possible team to winning games. 

Clearly there isn't/won't be any enforcement of it. The best protections is like others have said that players and coaches don't care about draft positioning. Losing hurts them and more draft capital equals more chances to be replaced as a player. 

The Rodgers situation might have been the closest we’ve seen to some ramifications coming out just because the whole thing was fishy and happened so late not like tanking that takes several weeks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...