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

[jnday]

No, Jimmy Johnson did not tank in 1989. Tanking would have been instructing the team to not attempt to win or to deliberately lose. Johnson did no such thing. The team did trade away its best player in the hopes that it would help the team to rebuild and be much better in the long run, which turned out to be the case. However, that does not meet the definition of tanking, which is to deliberately lose games or deliberately give it a low effort. Without Walker on the team, Johnson still put together game plans with the goal being to win those games. You can go onto Youtube and watch the Cowboy games from '89, and what you see is a young and inexperienced team that's playing hard attempting to win. They weren't a very good team at that point. But they weren't a team that was deliberately losing.

Johnson was signing players off the street and they was starting in the next game during that season. Johnson was smart enough to know that moves like this was not going to produce wins. Tanking is not as obvious as fans thinks it is.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Johnson was signing players off the street and they was starting in the next game during that season. Johnson was smart enough to know that moves like this was not going to produce wins. Tanking is not as obvious as fans thinks it is.

It's only tanking if the team deliberately loses, as in throwing a game. Johnson did not do that. He did prioritize building a great team in the long run over immediate winning, but he at no point ordered his players to deliberately lose a game. And the game plans he designed were plans to win. There was never a game where he put together a bad game plan on purpose in order to lose.

 

[Doomsday101]

Johnson was signing players off the street and they was starting in the next game during that season. Johnson was smart enough to know that moves like this was not going to produce wins. Tanking is not as obvious as fans thinks it is.

True, Johnson was looking for players but when he put them in he expected them to go out and show something, those who didn't did not stay around long. Dallas situation last year was a bit different, we have starters whom they intend on keeping but were injured and relied on backups some of those backups have not been resigned. Maybe what I call tanking and what others call it we see differently. I expect players to hit the field and produce and those who can't need to be released. Putting a backup in has to be with the intent of evaluation but also of the expectation of that player showing enough to continue developing him. I don't see any situation where you go out and just do not put in the effort to produce and win.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

You have a right to your opinion, but you are wrong.
Did you know that Jimmy Johnson tanked in 1989? Why do you think he traded Walker? He knew you had to hit rock bottom, flush the roster and then you would have a chance to hit the lottery. I am not saying every tank ends up in a SB winner in year 4. 1-15,7-9,11-5,13-3(SB), 12-4 (SB)
They just didn't call it tanking back then.
Let's look at the Dolphins. They are are probably one of the smartest if not the smartest organization in the league. Love their coach and GM.
They had the Texans #3 pick and look at what the Niners traded for that spot?
The Dolphins traded their 3rd pick to the 49ers in exchange for the No. 12 pick this year, a first- and third-round pick in 2022 and a first-round pick in 2023.
You are acting as if the Cowboys are the San Antonio Spurs who had that run of 50 win seasons or the Patriots since 2001.
Even the Falcons at the #4 pick have a lot of options. The league is getting smarter and smarter They know the benefit of having a fixed cost at QB. There are two options..
Superstar QB who is paid very well, and cheap young QB that you hope will pan out.
We have a QB who is way over his ski's in terms of salary, and this will be just like the Vikings, Ravens with Flacco, Jimmy G, Goff, Wentz.
Tanking is just the bad way of saying, you have to get really bad before you can bounce up. All the great franchises have to do it one time or another.

Just look at Jerry's run as GM, 1994- 2020. In the first few years he was running off the fumes of Jimmy Johnson, then by the end of the 90's that team was done. The next few years he was bad under Campo, then he got Bill to bring some respect back to the franchise. From 2007 to now he realized that this organization needs to be competitive and that is all the fans, media care about.
Jerry DOES NOT care about winning a SB. You can repeat all the crap he says, but just watch what he does. He cares about the hype, Sunday night fighting for the last playoff spot, Skip& Shannon, First take. He just wants the team to be in the news cycle. So his biggest fear is to be irrelevant.
He doest not want to be 3-13. He see's no upside in winning a SB. He already has three, he already makes more profit & revenue than any other team. Just like everything in life. He does not have the incentive to win. That is the bottom line.
We will all be here over the next 5, 10, 20 years and nothing will change. This team is not motivated to win a SB. Jerry does not come with the goal of asking how can this team win a SB.

What a bunch of nonsense. You guys keep going back to Jimmy as the last good example of tanking...30 YEARS AGO. It's pathetic.

Then you say "jimmy doesn't care about winning"...while proceeding to spew that what he likes his attention prestige big lights hype profit.

Since you can;t see the flaw in your logic...I will explain it...what MORE prestige and bigger lights can you GET...winning a Super Bowl. What MOR profit can come than a Super Bowl? What more prestige or praise? You think Jerry wouldn't dig that? Come on.

Now...you COULD say he doesn't know HOW...I'd buy that. You might even be able to say he let's his ego get in the way. But that doesn't mean he "doesn't care about winning".

This nonsense does NOT make you cool or more in-the-know. It just looks dumb.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

It's even more cowardly to not be able to use long term strategy because a person can't even handle a little losing for the big pic. That's the picture of cowardice.

Oh we can "handle a "LITTLE" losing"....it's what we been doing for quite some time. INTENTIONALLY doing it for something that may or (more likely) may not help is WAY different. Some of you same guys have been screaming about TE/RB picks in the 1st round...want to intentionally LOSE for those very same picks? Stupid.

 

[Reid1boys]

So what? They didn't tank. They had a good winning record that year, but it wasn't in the cards. They could not predict in advance what record would get them into the playoffs. No team can. So they played the best football they could with a journeyman quarterback. They were way better off doing that than deliberately tanking. Tanking is cancer to a team's mentality.

Maybe you are missing something, or we are just not on the same page. Tanking in the NFL to me doesnt begin in week 1. You always try to win, but by week 13, the Jets were 0-13 and completely out of the playoffs and had Trevor Lawrence within grasp. This COULD POSSIBLY be a player that turns a franchise around, like Marino and Elway did for the Dolphins and the Broncos. Lawrence was clearly the top pick in the draft and most of us knew it 2 years ago. In that situation... yea, you tank. As a matter of fact, if I was the owner Id have talked with that coach and told him if he did win one of these last 3 games he'd be fired. It was incredibly foolish to win 2 of the last 3 meaningless games. If Lawrence arrives in Jacksonville and turns them around and they end up winning 2 SB titles over Lawrence career, yea... the Jets will have been right to always try to win....lol

 

[jnday]

What a bunch of nonsense. You guys keep going back to Jimmy as the last good example of tanking...30 YEARS AGO. It's pathetic.

Then you say "jimmy doesn't care about winning"...while proceeding to spew that what he likes his attention prestige big lights hype profit.

Since you can;t see the flaw in your logic...I will explain it...what MORE prestige and bigger lights can you GET...winning a Super Bowl. What MOR profit can come than a Super Bowl? What more prestige or praise? You think Jerry wouldn't dig that? Come on.

Now...you COULD say he doesn't know HOW...I'd buy that. You might even be able to say he let's his ego get in the way. But that doesn't mean he "doesn't care about winning".

This nonsense does NOT make you cool or more in-the-know. It just looks dumb.

The reason why Jimmy is used as an example is because he was a Cowboy coach and the results was obvious. It is much easier to use an example that Cowboy fans are familiar with. It is a well known example that all of us can relate to.

 

[DallasEast]

Hopefully fans will (one day) come to the realization tanking is a choice taken by players, coaches, management or a combination of two or all three. Consequently, fans (some day) will also comprehend all the booing or wanting the team lose x-amount of games does not make their favorite team win, lose or tie during any game whatsoever--so hoping their favorite team wins all games is not a 'bad thing', within any real or imagined context.

Yes. I know. Pipe dream.

 

[dckid]

What a bunch of nonsense. You guys keep going back to Jimmy as the last good example of tanking...30 YEARS AGO. It's pathetic.

Then you say "jimmy doesn't care about winning"...while proceeding to spew that what he likes his attention prestige big lights hype profit.

Since you can;t see the flaw in your logic...I will explain it...what MORE prestige and bigger lights can you GET...winning a Super Bowl. What MOR profit can come than a Super Bowl? What more prestige or praise? You think Jerry wouldn't dig that? Come on.

Now...you COULD say he doesn't know HOW...I'd buy that. You might even be able to say he let's his ego get in the way. But that doesn't mean he "doesn't care about winning".

This nonsense does NOT make you cool or more in-the-know. It just looks dumb.

I guess we can all have our opinions. Tanking does not mean the coach goes and tells the team to go lose the game. The Cowboys absolutely tanked in 89. That was a talentless team that needed all the players it could get.
The Jags played hard last year, they did not ask their players to quit. The truth of the matter is the Cowboys should not have tried to win 6 meaningless games.

Also Jerry does not care about winning a SB. He is human, he is satisfied with the 3 he already has. He is a HOF'r as a owner. His legacy is set. He is not as hungry to win as he was in 89. This is human nature. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Jerry just wants to be relevant.. that is it. He will never allow this team to get bad enough to actually become a contender. He is happy with being 7-9 to 10-6... It's been that way for 15 years. I am actually giving him some credit for trying between 1994- 2006. The actual truth is he only cares to caress his ego. He is ok not winning another SB especially if someone else gets credit.

 

[dckid]

It's only tanking if the team deliberately loses, as in throwing a game. Johnson did not do that. He did prioritize building a great team in the long run over immediate winning, but he at no point ordered his players to deliberately lose a game. And the game plans he designed were plans to win. There was never a game where he put together a bad game plan on purpose in order to lose.

The Jags, Jets, Texans, Falcons did not lose a game on purpose. But the Jags and Jets were tanking. Don't fool yourself to think otherwise.

 

[OmerV]

Dallas Cowboys under Jimmy Johnson. I guess Jimmy is Mr. Coward then.

They didn't have to tank - Jimmy inherited a 3-13 team. The team just sucked.

Plus they traded their best player, which is the real building block - the gained draft picks from a trade, not the improved draft position from a losing season.

And Aikman was drafted based on the draft slot gained from Landry's last season as head coach, not with a pick Johnson acquired.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Maybe you are missing something, or we are just not on the same page. Tanking in the NFL to me doesnt begin in week 1. You always try to win, but by week 13, the Jets were 0-13 and completely out of the playoffs and had Trevor Lawrence within grasp. This COULD POSSIBLY be a player that turns a franchise around, like Marino and Elway did for the Dolphins and the Broncos. Lawrence was clearly the top pick in the draft and most of us knew it 2 years ago. In that situation... yea, you tank. As a matter of fact, if I was the owner Id have talked with that coach and told him if he did win one of these last 3 games he'd be fired. It was incredibly foolish to win 2 of the last 3 meaningless games. If Lawrence arrives in Jacksonville and turns them around and they end up winning 2 SB titles over Lawrence career, yea... the Jets will have been right to always try to win....lol

What you're describing does not meet the definition of tanking that I've always seen, which is to deliberately lose or deliberately play poorly. There was some World Series years ago where a team deliberately lost in order to win bets. I don't follow baseball, so I can't tell you which one. But to me, as long as a team is trying to win, that's not tanking. For example, if a team already has the playoffs locked up and then rests their starting QB in the final game, I don't call that tanking. They're still trying to win their game with their backup. They're just being cautious and making sure their starter, their best chance to win in the playoffs, is healthy. I see the Cowboys Herschel Walker, not as tanking a season, but as planning for the long haul. Johnson knew that losing Walker would reduce the team's chances to win. They probably could have gone something like 5 and 11 if they had kept Walker. But they weren't deliberately losing their games.

 

[cffl2323]

Depends on how you define tanking. Purposely sabotaging a game plan as a coach, or purposely playing poorly as a player... no doubt you don't want that on your team. But having the foresight, as the coach and/or GM, to see it may not be your year and getting younger players reps, and saving some beating from your veterans isn't cowardly, it's smart. Taking last year as an example, if Tyron or Dak had been healthy enough to play week 17 there's no way a coach should play them, and if they did, a good GM should fire them. Still annoys me Anae, Robinson, Gallimore, Gilbert, etc didn't get tons of playing time towards the end of last year.

 

[Reid1boys]

Depends on how you define tanking. Purposely sabotaging a game plan as a coach, or purposely playing poorly as a player... no doubt you don't want that on your team. But having the foresight, as the coach and/or GM, to see it may not be your year and getting younger players reps, and saving some beating from your veterans isn't cowardly, it's smart. Taking last year as an example, if Tyron or Dak had been healthy enough to play week 17 there's no way a coach should play them, and if they did, a good GM should fire them. Still annoys me Anae, Robinson, Gallimore, Gilbert, etc didn't get tons of playing time towards the end of last year.

Bingo... nobody is out missing tackles on purpose. Nobody is out throwing interceptions on purpose. BUT... a coach can put in players that he knows likely will cost the game. Coach can make some play calls that are a little questionable. Tanking never means yo drop passes or fumble on purpose.

The Sixers tanked for 3 years.... Im pretty sure nobody missed a jumper on purpose.

 

[Whirlwin]

I served in the military also... dont be so sensitive over word choice. Is it really that big of a deal?

This wasn’t directed at you

 

[Whirlwin]

thsts funny..... I dont hear many people talking about Steelers and their "Tainted," SB... as ma matter of fact, you are the first.

I guess you haven’t been around that long.Never heard of the immaculate reception

 

[Whirlwin]

If you aint cheating you aint trying. If you aint first, your last,
Astros signaling hitters with pitches. Pitchers using nail files on balls, Brady deflating balls, Belicheck filming other teams practices.... steroids and on and on and on.

Pro sports is about winning titles, thats it. Nobody cares how. Barry Bonds cheated his way to one heck of a career, and nobody cared he was juiced up when he was hitting those 70 HRs.

No they change the rules just because they felt like it. Of course people cared

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

Look at the NBA East standings right now. Look at the 2nd best record in the east and let me know how it crippled these players and their fragile egos.

What's the turnover ratio in the NBA vs the NFL? Or the roster size? Poor comparison. There are 5 starters on an NBA roster. Replace a bad one with a good one and you've effectively upgraded 20% of your starting lineup. There are 22 starters on an NFL roster excluding special teams and not factoring in a higher attrition rate. Do the math. The NFL doesn't have the luxury of completely revamping rosters in 1 or 2 seasons.

Now tell me this. Which games did you expect this team to lose? They were in contention all year, even if it was in a terrible division. They were expected to contend for a playoff spot and make a push before the injuries piled up. Wouldn't it look really really bad on the new head coach and his staff if they didn't at least try to remain competitive? Wouldn't the players notice this?

Look....it's one thing if a team is poor on talent and is rebuilding. That was not the case with this team. Agree or disagree? So if we have a team that's expected to contend for a playoff spot, and did more or less, for 17 weeks, where does tanking come into play?

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

The reason why Jimmy is used as an example is because he was a Cowboy coach and the results was obvious. It is much easier to use an example that Cowboy fans are familiar with. It is a well known example that all of us can relate to.

So if it's that great of a theory...what else do you have?

Everyone keeps going back to Jimmy and Aikman and Herschel. Nothing else. So I'm all ears.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I guess we can all have our opinions. Tanking does not mean the coach goes and tells the team to go lose the game. The Cowboys absolutely tanked in 89. That was a talentless team that needed all the players it could get.
The Jags played hard last year, they did not ask their players to quit. The truth of the matter is the Cowboys should not have tried to win 6 meaningless games.

Also Jerry does not care about winning a SB. He is human, he is satisfied with the 3 he already has. He is a HOF'r as a owner. His legacy is set. He is not as hungry to win as he was in 89. This is human nature. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Jerry just wants to be relevant.. that is it. He will never allow this team to get bad enough to actually become a contender. He is happy with being 7-9 to 10-6... It's been that way for 15 years. I am actually giving him some credit for trying between 1994- 2006. The actual truth is he only cares to caress his ego. He is ok not winning another SB especially if someone else gets credit.

Well Okay...we will still disagree...People have to go back 30 YEARS...to prove their point? Sorry...not gonna bow to such bs.

As was/has been mentioned many times...those were NOT "meaningless games"...not when a playoff spot is being contended. You have a VERY skewed and very odd definition of "meaningless".

You actually think Jerry would not enjoy another super bowl? Unbelievable you buy your OWN weak Bull crap. You spout "human nature" at me....

Jerry just "wants attention"...and there isn't any greater than a Super Bowl. A huge flaw...you REFUSE to acknowledge because it doesn't serve your narrative. You just ignore it. But that ...is "human nature".