Why tanking does not work in the NFL and could doom the Patriots long-term

[FCB02062]

Makes me wonder what Phins cast-off BB will sign next year. (If he's still here)

Berrios is on a one year deal...Bill will overpay for him

 

[BTTA]

I don't think they are tanking.

Most of the time, tanking is bad.

Some of the time, it's not: Colts and Andrew Luck.

A case could be made that the years of misery that the Colts went through to finally arrive at Luck is exactly why they never won with him, and were instead proud to display runner up banners. Got the QB they wanted while shaping a losing culture.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

Problem is, the players they need for next year aren't on the team

LOL replacing every player on the roster goes beyond tanking.

 

[Patriot Missile]

In the case of the Patriots, I would say it is different:

a.) We do have an elite D with Gonzalez/Judon in the fold, IMO. Even now with our D giving up uncharacteristic big plays, I see it as a result of T.O.P.

b.) We will also have a top 5 cap space the next 3 seasons.

c.) I think we are 1 OT away from being a top 7 OL (assuming we resign Onwenu, Andrews plays another year, and Strange gets better).

d.) We need game breakers on offense...and those are best found early in the draft.

This is why I argue it’s the perfect year to tank. When the Colts sucked for Luck they had a a lot of pieces still in place. Circumstances arrived where Manning wasn’t going to play and they sandbagged.

A lot better situation than say Houston, Cleveland, Detroit or Jacksonville. They were miles away and are finally starting to see the results of so many high draft picks.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

A case could be made that the years of misery that the Colts went through to finally arrive at Luck is exactly why they never won with him, and were instead proud to display runner up banners. Got the QB they wanted while shaping a losing culture.

The Colts weren't bad for a number of years. Their tanking was opportunistic when it was obvious that Payton was not going to be the same after the neck injury, just when the next generational QB was going to be available in the draft. The team did not invest enough in the OL after drafting Luck to keep him healthy.

 

[Patriot Missile]

The Colts weren't bad for a number of years. Their tanking was opportunistic when it was obvious that Payton was not going to be the same after the neck injury, just when the next generational QB was going to be available in the draft. The team did not invest enough in the OL after drafting Luck to keep him healthy.

Unfortunately they drafted only Nelson and that was it. Drafting killed that team. Same as ours to an extent.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

Standing Pat at the trading deadline means they’re not tanking…?

 

[lancerman]

There are more arguments against it than for it and the winning culture argument is quite real -- look at the Jete, Colts and Cardinals. At this stage of the season they know what younger players can do, simply throwing them to the wolves can hinder vs. enhance their development. Playing Malik Cunningham behind a reserve OL, for example, would make little sense.

The only way to build a team for the future is through trying to win. Draft position takes care of itself either way after the fact.

The Colts tanked for Luck and they were pretty competive with him until he started getting chronically injured. Any team that has their QB injured that much and then retire will have issues. The Pats this year are already a losing team. The difference between winning five games or staying at 2 isn't going to change how the players and the culture take this season.

A huge

 

[Zuma]

- Playing the younger players is important to see what they have for next season.
- Landing the #1 pick overall and then trading it for multiple picks is the best case scenario IMO.

 

[Tunescribe]

The Colts tanked for Luck and they were pretty competive with him until he started getting chronically injured. Any team that has their QB injured that much and then retire will have issues. The Pats this year are already a losing team. The difference between winning five games or staying at 2 isn't going to change how the players and the culture take this season.

A huge

It looks like your post was cut off before finishing.

The team culture issue involves how games are approached the rest of the way -- whether the same degree of effort is put into trying to win them as early on. A converse argument could be made that winning five games instead of two might not matter much depending on who drafts ahead of you and what their needs are. That's hard to control, along with "ensuring" losses.

You never know, this team might be bad enough as is for a top-five pick.

 

[aluminum seats]

I think the terms here are too loose to have a meaningful discussion about it.

What is tanking? Intentionally trying to lose? The players are going to try. The patriots didn't sell at the trade deadline so they're not taking in that respect. If it just comes down to fans rooting interests, that doesn't reflect what the team is doing one way or the other.

Anecdotally you can point to anything, but of course it's generally better to have higher draft choices, because your odds are better at getting good players.

 

[condon84]

In the case of the Patriots, I would say it is different:

a.) We do have an elite D with Gonzalez/Judon in the fold, IMO. Even now with our D giving up uncharacteristic big plays, I see it as a result of T.O.P.

b.) We will also have a top 5 cap space the next 3 seasons.

c.) I think we are 1 OT away from being a top 7 OL (assuming we resign Onwenu, Andrews plays another year, and Strange gets better).

d.) We need game breakers on offense...and those are best found early in the draft.

We are 1-4 in one score games. This team isn't as far as some people think.

Better QB play and we could be fighting for the division.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Its also top picks at rounds 2-7 and top of waiver claim wire. It is not a sure thing but improves chances of a turnaround.

The initial difference between the Super Bowl-winning team and the worst overall is essentially that the former gets pick ~224 while the latter gets pick 1. Everything else cancels out: 32 vs. 33, 64 vs. 65, etc. [And so far this year, the Panthers have even managed to F that up.]

 

[ctpatsfan77]

A case could be made that the years of misery that the Colts went through to finally arrive at Luck is exactly why they never won with him, and were instead proud to display runner up banners. Got the QB they wanted while shaping a losing culture.

You could also make the case that it was focusing too heavily on offensive weapons and not enough on the offensive line.

 

[Hyped]

We are 1-4 in one score games. This team isn't as far as some people think.

Better QB play and we could be fighting for the division.

Yup, see it the same way. If we could have an offense that can average 24 ppg OR move the ball enough to shift field position and give our D breathers.... the sky is the limit.

 

[Schmo]

For those rooting for the Patriots to tank, early first-round quarterback savior misfires by the Cardinals, Colts and Jete should be argument enough against it. For every C.J. Stroud lottery hit there are a dozen Sam Darnolds/Anthony Richardsons setting back team fortunes. Abandoning win-at-all-costs mentality does more harm to overall team culture and chemistry than any unproven rookie could hope to remedy. Winning is difficult in the NFL and wins are important building blocks especially for "bad" teams.

Should New England stumble its way into a top-five pick, so be it. But it guarantees nothing and indicates the team is far more than a quarterback away from contending.

"In the NFL, where one player can play at most half the snaps and even generational talents need help, team system and overall talent matter far more than having one (or a few) elite players. Throwing a rookie quarterback with franchise potential behind a bad offensive line and giving them few weapons and no defense to rely on is just throwing their potential away (and into the arms of your opponent’s d-line). Combine the lackluster talent on the field with the lack of consistency or quality in coaching or scheme that often comes with tanking teams, and you have a perfect recipe for disaster."

Forget your opinion on tanking: In the NFL, it’s just dumb

By now, you’ve heard of tanking. Simply put, a team intentionally loses in an attempt to land a high draft pick. I don’t care if you live under a rock, ESPN probably bought the moss on your rock and sold ad space on it. Professional pontificator Stephen A. Smith is likely screaming about tanking und

miscellanynews.org

Shake and Bak—No, Wait, Tank and Bank

Tanking: the only word that gets thrown around more than the football every NFL season. But what exactly is it, and why is it a horrible idea, especially for this year’s upcoming draft? Tanking is when a team plays horribly on purpose in order to get a better draft pick, and therefore get a great...

mcqshield.org

Why Tanking Does Not Work in Football

This past decade was filled with the prospect and popularity in tanking, which is when a team deliberately plays poorly in game action in order to secure a high draft pick to rebuild the team. The …

twsn.net

Why tanking in the NFL is barely existent

Every time the Knicks step onto the court these days, it’s clear — their strategy isn’t based on trying to win games this season. Their strategy is completely about the future. They won’t use…

nypost.com

I respect other fans opinions to the contrary, but this is exactly the type of fan I am. Losing games and directly affecting 100+ people's careers within the organization isn't worth getting a hypothesized slightly better unproven player.

Let the cards fall where they may, and let things work themselves out.

 

[signbabybrady]

Problem is, the players they need for next year aren't on the team.

I'm anti-tank. I believe in what happens down the stretch can carry over to the following year. And I questioned my own beliefs for the very reason you state it seems like we have little talent for the future but as bad as it is it's not empty. There is still a large number of players on this team that will be a part of this team for awhile and it's best to develop as many of them as we can.

 

[venecol]

Tanking is not required. Bill's trying to win to maintain the culture. Things Bill's done in trying to win:

1. Playing un-productive vet skill players over productive rookie skill players;
2. Playing DBs w/ less experience while benching veteran DBs w/ more experience;
3. Leaving Onwenu at RG instead of shifting to RT;
4. Making poor coaching decisions; and
5. Doing nothing at the trade deadline to improve the team.

Bill's doing a good job trying to win to tank.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

3. Leaving Onwenu at RG instead of shifting to RT;
5. Doing nothing at the trade deadline to improve the team.

I'm not going to argue the other points, but:

On Onwenu, he was recovering from surgery most of this offseason. RT is not "RG, but a couple yards to the right." Moreover, they see (not incorrectly, IMO) that RG is his best position, so moving him to RT and having a worse RG might have been a net downgrade even versus the status quo.

On the trade deadline, you need two to tango. There was no point bringing in someone for just this season.

 

[Ivan]

Tanking only exists at the GM level. Players and coaches get paid for what is on tape, there is absolutely no incentive for either to suck on purpose as they get paid based upon performance. Belichick is going to try and win every game, and the players are going to try to play their best because that’s directly tied to their future pay. At this point I want as high a pick as possible, so I’m fine with losing out, but the team isn’t going to lose on purpose. Then again they don’t have to try to lose, that’s what Mac is for.