vorpma Posted October 25, 2019 Posted October 25, 2019 22 hours ago, MAJBobby said: hate it. Leave it alone - agree!
GreggTX Posted October 25, 2019 Posted October 25, 2019 It's good that you're thinking outside the current zeitgeist OP, but I just don't know if I like the idea. Losing teams would really be screwed. Look at the Pats. They always pick late and still win.
Malazan Posted October 25, 2019 Posted October 25, 2019 47 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: 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. So your post is strange...it talks about how great it is to have a generational QB, but doesn't address how tanking is A) A problem B) A reasonable strategy to acquire a generational QB Let's just say that the Brown's have been purposely tanking for the last ten years. That's 33 out of 320 "seasons" of tanking. All related to one team...who still isn't any good. SRo what is the expectation on how many more seasons they need to "tank" to get the next Manning/Brees/Brady? Who's copying their model of "tanking" to win? Tanking isn't a problem in the NFL. People trying to say it's a problem are talking in abstract things that might happen and even then can't quantify how it would negatively impact the league. Tanking is something some people don't "like", not a problem.
Bookie Man Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 On 10/24/2019 at 6:20 PM, 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. I get it, that's how it looks. Much like Buffalo 2017 when a lot of the media and fans and some posters here claimed Buffalo was tanking after trading Dareus, Watkins, Darby amongst a lot of other moves. I think it's coaches wanting their guys, and not guys that aren't buying in. Cleaning house looks like tanking to people. They might be a bad team, but Flores is trying to win games. That to me isn't tanking. Jmo.
Sammy Watkins' Rib Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 19 hours ago, Figster said: Tua is almost as close to slam dunk as you can get in my humble opinion. My biggest concern with Tua would be Bama's dominant offensive line. I'll admit I haven't watched much college football at all this year. But if it's usual Bama, Tua probably has all day to throw and rarely faces adversity. Things will be much different in the NFL.
Brianmoorman4jesus Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 Which team has “tanking” worked for?
Big Turk Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) Tanking hasn't worked too well for the Browns. Hasn't worked well for the Sabres either up until maybe this year. The things people forget is there is a very human element to this and that all that losing over a period of time damages the very people that are expected to win later. This creates a negative environment that all they know is how to lose or they simply just become OK with losing and going through the motions to pick up their checks. I don't think it matters if they get high draft picks. They stripped their team down so badly that they are going to have to spend those picks to replace the players they traded away that were young enough to help resulting in a net gain of pretty much nothing. Edited October 26, 2019 by matter2003
Figster Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said: My biggest concern with Tua would be Bama's dominant offensive line. I'll admit I haven't watched much college football at all this year. But if it's usual Bama, Tua probably has all day to throw and rarely faces adversity. Things will be much different in the NFL. Tua is a smooth, smooth operator, even when pressured in my humble opinion. Impossible to rattle, accuracy off the charts. Might be the closest thing to Mahomes you will ever find IMO. Edited October 26, 2019 by Figster
KD in CA Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 22 hours ago, jeremy2020 said: Oh, look, a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Silly boy, the NFL never does that! Look how good the extra point, onside kick and OT rules work, not to mention instant replay!
Boatdrinks Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Silly boy, the NFL never does that! Look how good the extra point, onside kick and OT rules work, not to mention instant replay! Those actually were problems , though ( xp was too easy, onside too dangerous for players, OT rules meant usu just one offensive possession etc). One fluky outlier dynasty in New England ( caused by one player) when everything the NFL does is set up to prevent it happening doesn’t mean there’s a problem.
JESSEFEFFER Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) I like math and I think what you need to do is eliminate the effect of a single bad, possibly tanked season. So the Colts who sucked for Luck in the 2012 draft had win totals in the 3 seasons prior to the draft of 14, 10 and 2. So use those win totals but weight them as follows: W1/6 + W2/3 + W3/2. Thus, their draft order win total would be 14/6 + 20/6 + 6/6 = 40/6 = 6.67. I think that the team that had the worst 3 year stretch is most deserving of the #1 pick, no one would tank for 3 years straight because that gets them fired and their fans really pissed, and it dampens the effect of a single, abherrant season (like Manning's injury.) There, problem solved. Edited October 26, 2019 by JESSEFEFFER
May Day 10 Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 1 hour ago, JESSEFEFFER said: I like math and I think what you need to do is eliminate the effect of a single bad, possibly tanked season. So the Colts who sucked for Luck in the 2012 draft had win totals in the 3 seasons prior to the draft of 14, 10 and 2. So use those win totals but weight them as follows: W1/6 + W2/3 + W3/2. Thus, their draft order win total would be 14/6 + 20/6 + 6/6 = 40/6 = 6.67. I think that the team that had the worst 3 year stretch is most deserving of the #1 pick, no one would tank for 3 years straight because that gets them fired and their fans really pissed, and it dampens the effect of a single, abherrant season (like Manning's injury.) There, problem solved. I have been saying this should be done for the NHL. do a 3 year rolling average, but place restrictions on how many times a team can pick 1st, 2nd, or 3rd
Charles Romes Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 It’s much harder to tank in the NFL than in other sports. There are so few games that are so prominently promoted that the losses are emotionally devastating to fan bases. You don’t see too many fan bases jumping on board an NFL tank as in the fan endorsed Sabres tank of 14-15. Players in the NFL are also more likely to protest a tank than in other sports, especially offensive skill position players who don’t want their stats to erode. Word has it that the Dolphins move to Fitz this year was per the mandate of the players. Finally, there is much less of a likelihood in the NFL of a player being the clear choice as the #1 overall, like a LeBron, McDavid, or Zion. There are only a few cases is NFL history where there was one possible pick for #1 overall. OJ, Elway, Luck, very few others.
Boca BIlls Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 On 10/24/2019 at 6:07 PM, 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? Solution b/c one team is trying it? I doubt the Dolphins succeed from doing what they are doing so this isnt a problem. Still need to pick the correct guys. NFL tanking isnt like other sports where you can see one guy is above all else. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.
KD in CA Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 3 hours ago, May Day 10 said: I have been saying this should be done for the NHL. do a 3 year rolling average, but place restrictions on how many times a team can pick 1st, 2nd, or 3rd And no picking someone with blue eyes three years in a row. Hooray for over engineering absolutely everything!!
PaoloBillsFanFromItaly Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 I don't know if this has been discussed. I like the wheel system very much, this system was proposed for the NBA (in which tanking is a REAL issue, unlike the NFL). Draft pick is totally indipendent from the stangings, but is predetermined in a cycle of 30 years (32 in the NFL). This system does not give a prize for losing.
Jobot Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 Tom Brady would have lasted maximum 3 years in the league had he gone to any other team than NE. Tanking will rarely ever work. It worked once with Luck because Indy had zero insurance policy when Payton got hurt. I guarantee Miami isn't going to win a superbowl or playoff game during whoever they draft 1 overall next year.
May Day 10 Posted November 1, 2019 Posted November 1, 2019 On 10/26/2019 at 4:36 PM, KD in CA said: And no picking someone with blue eyes three years in a row. Hooray for over engineering absolutely everything!! I have said it before, but I prefer straight-up last picks first and so on. IMO, the NFL and MLB there is almost no problem at all... however, with MLB, teams are following the Astros' lead and tearing everything to the studs, which this season lead to half the American league playing 162 exhibition games. I think that is more of a product of their financial and playoff/regular season structure moreso than teams tanking acutely for the draft The NBA and NHL, there is immediate returns for an acute tank. Again, I would prefer last picks first and forget about it... but one of my last choices is an open, somewhat smoothed out lottery, such as the NHL holds. If the current rules were in place in 2015, we could have seen the Kings, who in the past 3 seasons won 2 cups and lost in a Conference Championship, but barely miss the playoffs swoop in and take McDavid (or Eichel). That would be awful. The NHL is constantly flirting with these disaster scenarios with this and it will lend to conspiracy theories. So IMO, if they want to prevent tanking, a 3 year rolling average would prevent that. Committing to a 3 year tank based on a player who is 14 or 15 years old when you decide to do it is not going to happen. At least with that, you feed the top prospects into the teams who really need them.
reddogblitz Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 On 10/24/2019 at 3:27 PM, vorpma said: Same thing - Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones "tanked" in 1989 then drafted a dynasty! yes and no. they already had Michael Irvin. About 1/2 the OLine was already there (Tuinei and The Kitchen). They inherited the first pick in the 1989 draft and took Troy. Really the Cowboys tanked or were really bad resulting high picks in 1988 (pre JJ) and 1989. And this was pre Free Agency as we now know it. Unrestricted Free Agency began in 1992.
reddogblitz Posted November 2, 2019 Posted November 2, 2019 On 10/24/2019 at 3:55 PM, Buffalo Timmy said: I thought he was playing Troy aikman and Michael Irvin similar to Peyton Manning learning his first year while sucking. Obviously you know Jimmy minds better than me. I Iwill speak for Cowboy fans of that era- short of winning the super bowl in 1989 there was nothing Jimmy could have done to impress them, they were pissed that Landry was pushed out the door. You're damn straight. I was 1 or them. It's what led me to renounce my fandom and switch it to the Bills. My favorite team is the Bills. My 2nd favorite team is whoever is playing the Cowboys. My 3rd favorite team is whoever is playing the Cheats**.
Recommended Posts