Tanking is one of the most cowardly things a team could do

[TheMarathonContinues]

That't the whole point of the cheap QB. The ability to stack your team.

Yeah but the Chiefs, Ravens and Seahawks were stacked before those guys got there. Mind you.....Pat Mahomes inherited a Chiefs team that was a playoff team before he even stepped foot on the field. Tyreke Hill and Kelce were there before him. Seahawks drafted Bobby Wagner in the same draft as Russell Wilson....Sherman, Malcolm Smith, Okung, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, Kam Chancellor......all there before Russel Wilson even got there. So no..the point wasn't to get a cheap QB....mind you, they wasted money on signing Matt Flynn to a 3 year deal until Russ showed he was better that year.

So its not just the "cheap QB". Hitting on cheap rookie talent also helped these guys out.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

there is ways to take without losing the locker-room. You play all the young guys and rest your starters

Which is what they did lol. It wasn't like they had grips of veterans out there playing lol.

 

[aria]

I’ll never understand taking, it’s a loser mentality. I literally can’t comprehend losing on purpose and I wouldn’t want any player or coach on my team that didn’t give 110% all of the time.

 

[thunderpimp91]

Yeah.. It's called HOF Quarterbacks.

To an extent sure....Pittsburgh has still managed to create a dominant defense that was in the playoff chase despite Big Ben being injured/declining, New England has turned other teams junk into serviceable players for years. Green Bay I’ll give you....that team without Rogers probably wins 5 games a year.

My point is good teams typically figure it out, and have the ability to not just pick good players but actually develop and put them in the right position to succeed. The development piece seems to be more important. Organizations like Cleveland, Washington, Detroit have been picking high for the better part of two decades but have almost nothing to show for it.

 

[Reid1boys]

In the NFL its not the worst position to be in sports. NBA yes I would agree.

Because I've seen teams be middle of the pack like the Eagles, Chiefs, Ravens, Packers and go on to win Super Bowls. It can literally change in one year.

I think what's eluding you is that you think the NFL is this long "process" that Garrett sold this fanbase. Its not. You don't have to stink for years in order to get good. Those days are long gone. You don't just go from "terrible" to Super Bowl. That's not how it works. No matter what path you take. Whether its to be "mediocre" or "terrible"....you will have to get to the middle before you get to the top.

If we were in the 80s, Id agree with your comment. But there are far too many examples of teams completely sucking and going to the SB the very next year. Rams went from 4-12 to winning the4 SB the next year.
Bucs were 7-9 to 11-5 and won the SB
2003 Panthers finished last in division previous 2 years, SB following season
2017 Eagles were 6-10 the year before winning the SB, and back to crap just as fast.

It just happens far too often in todays NFL where a team was last the previous year and wins a division , possible conference title appearance and even SB wins.

 

[waving monkey]

In my opinion. It’s one of the most cowardly things a team could do. Nothing positive comes from it. It can destroy a locker room. It creates a losing mentality. All those people that want us to tank and lose games on purpose. What a waste it would’ve been. It would not have given us a better First round draft choice. Specifically because we’re going to be able to take the best Defensive player in this draft. I hope this such a great example of why you never tank . You just don’t know what the result of it is going to bring. Other than Negativity. Go cowboys hope you have a great draft

Miami Dolphins are having a good laugh over this post

 

[Reid1boys]

To an extent sure....Pittsburgh has still managed to create a dominant defense that was in the playoff chase despite Big Ben being injured/declining, New England has turned other teams junk into serviceable players for years. Green Bay I’ll give you....that team without Rogers probably wins 5 games a year.

My point is good teams typically figure it out, and have the ability to not just pick good players but actually develop and put them in the right position to succeed. The development piece seems to be more important. Organizations like Cleveland, Washington, Detroit have been picking high for the better part of two decades but have almost nothing to show for it.

bahahahhaahha... You say New England as a shining example of making players better then mention how GB without Rodgers would win 5 games a year.

How many games did the Pats win without Brady last year as Brady took a weak Bucs team to a SB title? The pats were GARBAGE last year, and will be this year and every year moving forward until they get a QB. Belichek is about to enter the real coaching world..... in As the world turns with an avg NFL qb behind center.

Pitt was in the "Playoff Chase," without Ben....lol. Hey, be in the playoff chase for 3 years and see what that gets you.... FIRED.



My point is good teams typically figure it out, and have the ability to not just pick good players but actually develop and put them in the right position to succeed.


Its amazing how teams with a top QB seem to figure it out a little better than most.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Basically to some they'd rather win the Draft. That's their SB.

Losing is a cancer!

One is not connected to the other.

Nice straw man argument. You knocked that down with no trouble.

The point is clear.

Top of draft has the best talent.
Winning meaningless games in special seasons moves you away from top of draft.
Bringing in best talent moves you closer to championship - albeit there are other components which come into play - but talent is at the core of every team's success.
Successful teams are built around playmakers.
While the draft is a crap shoot, by and large, the play makers are at the top.

(Anecdotal instances like Brady and Montana are the outliers and not the norm. Using them as an example just indicates how sketchy the draft is. How the people who pick the talent are as clueless as fans at times. Not how special talent lives in later rounds consistently)

Read an article years ago - around 1999 - about teams who have had a series of poor seasons and the result of picking at the top of the draft. One of the teams was the Baltimore Ravens. At that time they had more number one draft picks - early picks in each round of each draft - on their team than any other team in the league.

They ended up winning the Super Bowl that next year.

So one might make the claim that losing games and seasons builds championship teams. While you may think that is a sophomoric statement, it is closer to the truth than your chest pounding comment above.

No fan wants to lose games every year. Just a few years when you are close to the top, but too far away to get premium players.

Fact is, with the results of the past quarter century with this team, 8-8 and being in the middle of the draft hasn't produces jack squat.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Another point.

This draft is not defense laden compared to offense. I am not a trade down guy. I believe the same rules apply to trading down as being in the middle of the draft in rounds.

Had Dallas lost a couple of games late in the season, and been drafting around five or six, what draft capital could have been garnered with a trade down with a team jockeying to get a QB?

If the best defenders are after pick 10, and you are wanting a defensive draft - which goes against everything I believe in drafting talent over need - how much would being in the middle of the top ten in the first round have brought this team, in quality picks and perhaps top picks next season?

Logic doesn't give a damn about your testosterone driven feelings.

 

[thunderpimp91]

bahahahhaahha... You say New England as a shining example of making players better then mention how GB without Rodgers would win 5 games a year.

How many games did the Pats win without Brady last year as Brady took a weak Bucs team to a SB title? The pats were GARBAGE last year, and will be this year and every year moving forward until they get a QB. Belichek is about to enter the real coaching world..... in As the world turns with an avg NFL qb behind center.

Pitt was in the "Playoff Chase," without Ben....lol. Hey, be in the playoff chase for 3 years and see what that gets you.... FIRED.



My point is good teams typically figure it out, and have the ability to not just pick good players but actually develop and put them in the right position to succeed.


Its amazing how teams with a top QB seem to figure it out a little better than most.

I’m not arguing that top teams don’t tend to have great QBs, but I do think it’s lazy analysis if that is where we end the discussion.

the pats won 7 games last year after losing Brady, were in cap hell, and had multiple starters on defense sit the year out because of COVID. Last time Brady missed a year they still won 10 games. Even Pittsburgh stayed relevant without Ben in 2019.

the cowboys by comparison who more often than not people buy into how loaded they are with talent have struggled to win at all without Dak/Romo.

Detroit had a pretty good qb and still couldn’t win. Miami has been picking high in the draft for years, still can’t develop a qb. The jets continue to take qbs high and can’t do anything.

you have to develop a full roster to win it all, some teams have done a significantly better job than others at that.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

If we were in the 80s, Id agree with your comment. But there are far too many examples of teams completely sucking and going to the SB the very next year. Rams went from 4-12 to winning the4 SB the next year.
Bucs were 7-9 to 11-5 and won the SB
2003 Panthers finished last in division previous 2 years, SB following season
2017 Eagles were 6-10 the year before winning the SB, and back to crap just as fast.

It just happens far too often in todays NFL where a team was last the previous year and wins a division , possible conference title appearance and even SB wins.

That's the point I was making. @CATCH17 said he'd rather be horrible and get a top 2 pick as opposed to being mediocre.....7-9, 6-10,8-8.....these are the records of examples you just gave.

My point was...there's no history of teams going 2-14 and going on to win a Super Bowl. So this notion that in order to be a great team you have to be a bad team is not only misguided but its not true.

 

[CATCH17]

That's the point I was making. @CATCH17 said he'd rather be horrible and get a top 2 pick as opposed to being mediocre.....7-9, 6-10,8-8.....these are the records of examples you just gave.

My point was...there's no history of teams going 2-14 and going on to win a Super Bowl. So this notion that in order to be a great team you have to be a bad team is not only misguided but its not true.

I feel like you’re looking too deep into it.

If we wanted to be anecdotal we could say Dallas had their best season in years after having a top 5 pick in the draft.

Dallas is as mediocre as it gets and stays as mediocre as it gets.

 

[plasticman]

Tanking a season is not the actions of a team of players or their coaches. The ability to tank a season comes from management, particularly the GM or person in charge of player personnel.

First, from a common sense point of view, if I am a player, do I want to play with less intensity just so the team can draft a better player? What position will this higher drafted individual play....mine?

From a coaches point of view, these seasons are my resume. Common sense tells me I'm not going to be coaching here forever, no matter how the current team performs. What will matter to any future employer will be the overall performance of my teams compared to their perceived talent level.. Why would I want them to perform at a lower level? I'm already challenged by their lower talent level.

The tanking would have to come from those that decide how to manage the talent level. They would be the only ones with the authority to change the team's overall talent level by manipulating the roster.

It's important to note that their intent isn't to lose more games as much as it is to increase the probability of winning more games in the future. Tanking is a form of trading current success for future success. It's not really as insidious as it sounds.

For example, after the end of the 1988 season, the Cowboys had a really low level of real talent. Most of the talent they did have had declined through age and poor drafting. However, they had one great player, All Pro RB Herschel Walker. Walker could improve the team's overall 1989 record by a few games for sure but it would never have been enough to make the team competitive. The Cowboys would have to lose for several years as they acquired talent through their own draft choices.

So the Cowboy traded Herschel Walker as a method of accelerating the increase of talent level. Of course, the repercussion was a huge decrease in the talent level of the current team. However, it did not reduce the the effort of the current team. In fact, I would say it probably increased it, although the talent level of the team dictated that the effort would not be enough to win games. Every player knew that Jimmy didn't care who you were, if you weren't working hard enough, he would get rid of you. The team was never going to tank by decreasing the individual efforts of the players.

However, it was clear that trading Walker was going to reduce the team's success in 1989. Wasn't this tanking? In Jimmy's capacity as GM, because he did have total authority at the time, he reduced the team's ability to win a few more games. The answer may lie in the way we define "success". Is going 3-13 more "successful" than 1-15? Technically, yes. If, for example, you are in debt by a thousand dollars, then you are better off financially than if you were in debt by ten thousand but you are still in debt.

Here is a question....If I trade a draft pick for a much better one the following year, am I "tanking" the current season?

To summarize, tanking is a myth in the NFL. There are too many players and coaches for a team to conspire to deliberately lose games through less individual efforts. What really happens is the team's executives will make a decision that they believe will result in more success over a specific time period...like the contract length of a GM. The side effect of their decisions will detriment a current season, although GM's would prefer that they don't. The objective is not to lose games and get better draft picks, it is to exchange or liquidate elements of the team that will not be contributing in that future in order to replace them with elements that will be contributing.

 

[MarcusRock]

This is sports.. Not a Mel Gipson movie.

You're looking to get a advantage somehow some way.

Teams have been tanking in all sports for a long time.. Does anyone care? No.. It's not a topic of discussion because nobody cares.

It sounds cool to say things like them being cowards or whatever but the goal of this sport is to win championships so whatever gets you to that goal is fair game.

Morale victories are for the Jones's who win nothing. Belichick will do whatever it takes to hold up a Lombardi.

For real. The "at least I have morals" crowd can usually afford to have them while they look down their noses at others. Put them in a position when they don't have the advantage or feel vulnerable and see how their "truth and justice" weather vane spins. On the health front today, even the "anti-" crowds shut their traps real quick when they need to take a flight somewhere. Drama queening. The new American way.

 

[America's Cowboy]

In my opinion. It’s one of the most cowardly things a team could do. Nothing positive comes from it. It can destroy a locker room. It creates a losing mentality. All those people that want us to tank and lose games on purpose. What a waste it would’ve been. It would not have given us a better First round draft choice. Specifically because we’re going to be able to take the best Defensive player in this draft. I hope this such a great example of why you never tank . You just don’t know what the result of it is going to bring. Other than Negativity. Go cowboys hope you have a great draft

I would build a better team, beat your team with this better built team, then laugh at you for your ignorance.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I feel like you’re looking too deep into it.

If we wanted to be anecdotal we could say Dallas had their best season in years after having a top 5 pick in the draft.

Dallas is as mediocre as it gets and stays as mediocre as it gets.

I don't disagree with you. They are mediocre. Like I said above, I just disagree with you on WHY they are mediocre. Its not because of their lack of top 4 picks IMO. You don't need top picks consistently to contend.

 

[CouchCoach]

I think tanking that affects the playoffs and allows teams easy wins are wrong. Other than that, I don't care.

If I was a ticket holder and wanting my team to fight until the bitter end and go down swinging, I would feel different. But I am not so I don't.

If I owned a team and it was a bad year, I would be looking for anything to salvage the season.

Those fans that went to the CIN homes games in the last quarter of the season in 2019 went with Joe Burrow signs. Maybe the Jets fans should have picked up on that?

At some point when your team is really bad, you have to figure out something to give the fans a spark of hope. CIN did that and Wilson may turn out to be the answer but the Jets should have gone for Lawrence.

When you team sucks, does anyone really care if they're fighting to win? The season is already over and people have moved on to the next season.

Now, if you're talking about the NFCE? The WFT just did the poorest job of tanking.

 

[blueblood70]

In my opinion. It’s one of the most cowardly things a team could do. Nothing positive comes from it. It can destroy a locker room. It creates a losing mentality. All those people that want us to tank and lose games on purpose. What a waste it would’ve been. It would not have given us a better First round draft choice. Specifically because we’re going to be able to take the best Defensive player in this draft. I hope this such a great example of why you never tank . You just don’t know what the result of it is going to bring. Other than Negativity. Go cowboys hope you have a great draft

while i agree with you , we just had a drawn out dead horse beating of this subject here

The Cost of Meaningless Close Wins | Page 14 | Dallas Cowboys Forum - CowboysZone.com


plead for luv of god , did we need to have another??answer is NO!

 

[DogFace]

Tanking is quitting—literally.

I don’t support quitting or the mentality that goes with it.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I would build a better team, beat your team with this better built team, then laugh at you for your ignorance.

I don't know about a better team. If you have a team full of players who are accustom to losing or okay with tanking then you've already lost your locker room. These players are playing for incentives and bonuses and you think you can get away with telling them to take off games? Let's see how that works lol.