A possible solution for tanking? Reinvent the draft.

[Malazan]

Oh, look, a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[MAJBobby]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Manning missed the whole whole season but there's no way if you watched that team that you could say they weren't tanking. This was a team that went to the playoffs every year with Manning under center and he misses one year and they only win 2 games? I would believe that if they were a 7-9 team but 2-14? That's not because they lost Manning, it's because they saw an opportunity to draft what at time considered a once in a generation QB coming out of college the following year and they knew what they had to do. If they weren't tanking they could have easily traded for a halfway decent competent QB to try to at least be average until Manning returned but they chose not to. It was cleared to see when you watched them play. 

 

Fact is Who was their BU QB?  Yeah not very good, they lost that happens.

 

Now How many 1st overall pick QBs have won a SB since 1990.  Tanking in football solves NOTHING

[WideNine]

17 hours ago, vorpma said:

Absolutely, they dumped the whole organization and started over knowing they were going to get beat (Dolphins 2019) and knew they had to draft great and they did! Modern day NFL fans (millennials) want winning right away and just cannot grasp the pain of building a winning organization - Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones 1989 - 1992!

 

To be fair it is a bit of a bad analogy using that Dallas team as they did win a lottery of sorts.

 

The infamous Herschel Walker trade deal with Minnesota in 89 which was the largest (and most lopsided) NFL trade deal in history that involved 18 players and pics. It had a trickle down effect across the NFL - I think I read somewhere that the Bills landed Cornelius Bennett through some mechanism due to that trade. Minnesota floundered in the basement while Dallas loaded up their roster for their multi-title run.

 

Sans bone-headed mega-trades I think that the prescriptive and slow process of rebuilding teams via drafts and strategic trades would normally produce more parity regarding SB participants, but there will always be the outliers like NE who have maintained a system with the same coach and some key players that allow them to avoid the dips and spikes in performance by simply replacing a component player as needed and tailoring their game plans to their strengths each year  - a framework I think McDermott is trying to replicate in Buffalo.

[May Day 10]

I think it is fine.  Tanking in the NFL isnt an issue IMO.  How often is there really a clear cut #1 "franchise changer"?  It isn't like the NHL (or NBA) where you can nab a franchise cornerstone at #1 many years.  To dig as deep as the Dolphins did in order to get a #1 overall is extremely risky and counter-productive.  There are 53 spots to fill.  

 

I think the Bills and McDermott hit a great balance between clearing the cap, amassing assets, yet still competing.

[Buffalo03]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Fact is Who was their BU QB?  Yeah not very good, they lost that happens.

 

Now How many 1st overall pick QBs have won a SB since 1990.  Tanking in football solves NOTHING

There haven't been that many number 1 pick QBs that have won a SB. I get what you're saying. But that's not the way that NFL teams see it. They know that a franchise QB is the most important player on the field. They know in order to get one that they will more than likely have to draft for one. They know the best way to get the guy they want is to get the number 1 pick. They know the way to get that pick is to tank the season. Getting the guy they want 1st overall doesn't guarantee a SB win but you better believe they are gonna want to take the chance and the answer to your other question, their backup QB was Curtis Painter and I think Jim Sorgi? My point in brought up in my last post was they made no effort to get a better QB at all. They saw an opportunity to get the successor to Peyton and took it. Look at what the Dolphins did a few years ago when Tannehill went down, they went as far as getting Jay Cutler out of retirement to keep their season alive. The Colts never attempted that at all

Edited October 25, 2019 by Buffalo03

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

19 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

How does one prove a team is tanking???

 

Trading away valuable assets for future picks, I would imagine. I would hope no head coach would intentionally lose a game. It really sucks in the NBA because you have to see 20-80 games of tanking, but at least in the NFL, 16 at most.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Teams that tank in the NFL are dumb. It doesn't work. This isn't the NBA where one player can change the fate of an organization.  

 

Tua is no slam dunk franchise QB. And IF he is good, Miami or any other terrible team still has to hit on most of their other draft picks and free agent acquisitions over a multi-year period. Easier said than done.

 

How many years in row did the Lions pick in the top 3-5 in the early 2000's? And they have like two playoff appearances to show for it? Meanwhile during that same time period the Packers grabbed Aaron Rodgers at pick #26 of the first round. So much for tanking.

[billsfan89]

The NFL does not have quite the same epidemic of teams tanking as the NBA did and to some degree still does (although their lottery reform has made teams think twice about outright tanking.) The NBA saw a lot of teams tanking because the worst thing you could have done in the NBA was be a middle ground team that would either barely squeak into the playoffs and get bounced in the first round or miss the playoffs with a very low chance at a top pick. Basically you were bizarrely incentivized to be an awful team as opposed to being a mediocre or average one. 

 

So the NBA had teams basically deciding are you ready to seriously contend for a title or at least a deep playoff run? If not you are better off tanking. The NFL isn't having that epidemic just yet. The Browns tanked for a couple of seasons and just as the Browns made efforts to compete after finding their QB now the Dolphins are following a similar model. 

 

In the past 4 years I can't think of any other teams that were outright tanking. People said the Bills were tanking when they traded Sammy and Darby but that didn't quite happen. I don't know of any other team that wasn't at least trying to be somewhat competitive. The Redskins and Bengals both went into the season trying to field competitive teams, injuries and poor developments made them awful.

I think the draft is fine as is one or two teams taking an extreme method of tanking is not a reason to institute a lottery or bidding system. Now if the Browns and Fins plans work and you see more teams trying this type of talent sell of scheme and 2-3 year tanking plans then you might have a case. Bottomline is that there is no need for drastic action at the moment since two teams in 5 years trying this (and no example of it working) is not a reason to make massive changes. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by billsfan89

[Nihilarian]

19 hours ago, MJS said:

They've jettisoned all their talent so they have no hope of winning regardless of who starts at QB. It's as tank as tanking gets.

Tough for the fans to stomach, I think. Very tough for the players and coaches to stomach because they put their time, energy, and bodies on the line to win.

Of course the HC and staff want to win as their jobs depend on it.

 

Its the GM and owner who decide to tank. The most obvious tank was the Colts for Luck! Their OC retired just weeks before the season and they decided to bring in a new vet QB just weeks before the season who had no clue about their offensive scheme. Polian lost his job... but they got their guy! Seems ironic to me that they fired the GM who tanked them and picked the right guy...then hired a boob GM who didn't understand the concept of building a decent O line to protect that rookie.

 

The thing is, even with a top 10 pick there is no guarantee that this losing team will get better until they hire that top GM, scouting staff and HC. Cleveland and Buffalo are clear examples of this.

 

The Patriots picking in the last 10 out of 30 and going to the SB year after year proves the draft isn't all that important as some think it is. 

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Teams that tank in the NFL are dumb. It doesn't work. This isn't the NBA where one player can change the fate of an organization.  

 

Tua is no slam dunk franchise QB. And IF he is good, Miami or any other terrible team still has to hit on most of their other draft picks and free agent acquisitions over a multi-year period. Easier said than done.

 

How many years in row did the Lions pick in the top 3-5 in the early 2000's? And they have like two playoff appearances to show for it? Meanwhile during that same time period the Packers grabbed Aaron Rodgers at pick #26 of the first round. So much for tanking.

 

We will see if Cleveland's plan pays off (which this season it hasn't) and if Miami's plan does too. I don't think it will as intended as QB's are a crap shoot and dependent on the talent around them to a degree. The NFL's cap and the quick nature of rookie deals makes it harder to accumulate assets like in the NBA. Basically by the time you are ready to compete after tanking for 2-3 years you are going to run up against players you drafted early in that process needing contract extensions. 

[Figster]

1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said:

Oh, look, a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Tanking doesn't exist?

 

I think it does...

[Figster]

34 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Teams that tank in the NFL are dumb. It doesn't work. This isn't the NBA where one player can change the fate of an organization.  

 

Tua is no slam dunk franchise QB. And IF he is good, Miami or any other terrible team still has to hit on most of their other draft picks and free agent acquisitions over a multi-year period. Easier said than done.

 

How many years in row did the Lions pick in the top 3-5 in the early 2000's? And they have like two playoff appearances to show for it? Meanwhile during that same time period the Packers grabbed Aaron Rodgers at pick #26 of the first round. So much for tanking.

Tua is almost as close to slam dunk as you can get in my humble opinion.

 

I'm not just saying that because I'm a bama fan,

 

O K, maybe a little...

 

  

Edited October 25, 2019 by Figster

[djp14150]

20 hours ago, Jigsaw2112 said:

At this point it's obvious what the Dolphins are doing, and a few other teams are definitely in yard sale mode.  

If the league wants to prevent teams from sandbagging themselves for a high draft pick, what are they to do?  The current system rewards failure, but middling teams who could make the leap with high end talent end up stuck on the 6 to 8 win treadmill (As we Bills fans know all too well.)

How about this for a concept:

    1. In 4 years, eliminate the draft as we know it.  This will work all the traded picks that currently exist out of the system.

    2. Install an auction style system in its place.  Every team already has a salary cap, so every team would still have a budget.  Since we basically spend 4 months ranking these guys anyway, develop a consensus computer ranking system 1-250.  Have the same show on draft weekend, starting with the #1 guy, but every team with cash to spend can bid on who they need, one player at a time, just focus on the player instead of the drafting team for 15 minutes.  

By doing this there's no incentive to fail, you still have to spend wisely, and the fans still have hope that their team can get quality players.

I believe the NFL could make a good show of it, and with all the cap rules currently in place a team couldn't just dump all their guys and buy half the first round.

Any thoughts?

    

 

 

This is dumb.

 

if you had a free agent system you would have high salaries to unproven pkayers which what it was like before a draft pick salary structure was created. Thus frees up more money for those who earn it.

 

sure as in all sports teams need to rebuild and usually do thus with gun changes when they switch defenses from 34 to 43 or change offense from run to pass oriented.

 

sure you coukd fo a draft lottery preventing some tanking on who gets the top 5 draft picks from the 20 teams who miss the playoffs.

 

 

[Malazan]

1 hour ago, Figster said:

Tanking doesn't exist?

 

I think it does...

 

Tanking Exists. 

 

The tanking "problem" doesn't.

Edited October 25, 2019 by jeremy2020

[Figster]

2 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

Tanking Exists. 

 

The tanking "problem" doesn't.

I think matchups with a 0 win team is bad from an entertainment standpoint and bad for the league. 

[Malazan]

Just now, Figster said:

I think matchups with a 0 win team is bad from an entertainment standpoint and bad for the league. 

 

Are they? Maybe when your team struggles against them. A lot of fans enjoy their team blowing out another team.

 

Regardless, how is Miami worse than the Lions or the Browns though? Jets? Washington? In fact, Miami almost beat a team on a trajectory for the playoffs last week. 

 

There's also the problem that it doesn't work. Miami getting the #1 overall pick doesn't guarantee anything. It's not even likely that getting the #1 overall pick registers an impact. 

 

There's no tangible problem here. It's a bunch of noise from some people who don't "like" it.

[billsfan89]

Just now, jeremy2020 said:

 

Are they? Maybe when your team struggles against them. A lot of fans enjoy their team blowing out another team.

 

Regardless, how is Miami worse than the Lions or the Browns though? Jets? Washington? In fact, Miami almost beat a team on a trajectory for the playoffs last week. 

 

There's also the problem that it doesn't work. Miami getting the #1 overall pick doesn't guarantee anything. It's not even likely that getting the #1 overall pick registers an impact. 

 

There's no tangible problem here. It's a bunch of noise from some people who don't "like" it.

 

The NBA had at one point 6-8 teams yearly that were in tank mode and the quality of the league wasn't impacted (I would argue that the Durant addition to the Warriors threw off the quality of the league for years.) The NFL having 1 or 2 teams being extra bad like Miami and the Browns a couple of years ago isn't going to impact the quality of the league.

 

I think the problem for the NFL will be if Cleveland and Miami have successful runs in part as a result of the draft choices accumulated and aggressive tanking will other teams follow suit? I think if you have 4-6 teams completely stripping down their teams each year then you could have an issue where you might need to institute some sort of structural change.

 

But as of now it isn't an issue as it hasn't even proven to work for the one team several years into it the Browns. 

[Figster]

10 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

Are they? Maybe when your team struggles against them. A lot of fans enjoy their team blowing out another team.

 

Regardless, how is Miami worse than the Lions or the Browns though? Jets? Washington? In fact, Miami almost beat a team on a trajectory for the playoffs last week. 

 

There's also the problem that it doesn't work. Miami getting the #1 overall pick doesn't guarantee anything. It's not even likely that getting the #1 overall pick registers an impact. 

 

There's no tangible problem here. It's a bunch of noise from some people who don't "like" it.

I don't think you should get rewarded for piss poor management and coaching.

 

I also don't think the best players in the nation deserve to be rewarded with playing for the worst teams in the NFL.

[Malazan]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The NBA had at one point 6-8 teams yearly that were in tank mode and the quality of the league wasn't impacted (I would argue that the Durant addition to the Warriors threw off the quality of the league for years.) The NFL having 1 or 2 teams being extra bad like Miami and the Browns a couple of years ago isn't going to impact the quality of the league.

 

I think the problem for the NFL will be if Cleveland and Miami have successful runs in part as a result of the draft choices accumulated and aggressive tanking will other teams follow suit? I think if you have 4-6 teams completely stripping down their teams each year then you could have an issue where you might need to institute some sort of structural change.

 

But as of now it isn't an issue as it hasn't even proven to work for the one team several years into it the Browns. 

 

You're right that have a couple "purposely" bad teams won't make a dent. The NFL always has a couple really, really bad teams. The Browns haven't been tanking. They've just been incompetent.

 

The NBA is totally different animal (warning: I don't follow the NBA). Unless you can draft Peyton Manning, you're unlikely to have a player *worth* tanking. The NFL Draft is entirely different than the NBA, MLB or NHL.

 

Also, if Miami turns it around..it's not the "tanking" to get the first overall pick that's really going to be the catalyst. It would be the trades to stockpile early round picks. The "benefit" of tanking in the NFL isn't getting the 1st overall pick. It's getting a flurry of picks and cap space. 

[billsfan89]

10 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

You're right that have a couple "purposely" bad teams won't make a dent. The NFL always has a couple really, really bad teams. The Browns haven't been tanking. They've just been incompetent.

 

The NBA is totally different animal (warning: I don't follow the NBA). Unless you can draft Peyton Manning, you're unlikely to have a player *worth* tanking. The NFL Draft is entirely different than the NBA, MLB or NHL.

 

Also, if Miami turns it around..it's not the "tanking" to get the first overall pick that's really going to be the catalyst. It would be the trades to stockpile early round picks. The "benefit" of tanking in the NFL isn't getting the 1st overall pick. It's getting a flurry of picks and cap space. 

 

The Browns for a few seasons before they drafted Baker were kind of actively tanking in a sense that they were constantly selling off players and trading for future picks while sitting on a massive pile of cap space. They had chances to make their team better but waited purposefully to do so. QB's are worth tanking for because they are a position that has both longevity, impact and are difficult to find. Having a franchise top 10 QB gives you a window to win a Super Bowl for 15-18 years. They play well until they are 38-40, they don't get injured as often due to new rules and advancing modern medicine. Teams go decades without finding a good one. 

 

The thing about having a top 10 bonafide QB is that for 15 or so seasons you are going to have a better QB (and thus a huge advantage) than 75-90% of the teams you play. With the added bonus of them being cheap and affordable on their rookie deal for the first five seasons. Toss in the fact that they are 

 

Yes we all know that once they get paid 35-40 million a year that advantage is diminished due to soaking up cap resources but once the team recalibrate their cap that advantage is almost back to full force.