Is this Tanking/Quitting

Blitzen

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
1,960
Let's say that you trade player "A". You as GM feel confident that the team can likely win 6 of 10 final games with player A and will likely make the playoffs. You also feel certain that player A will unlikely (somewhere beyond 99 percent) be able to win against the other playoff teams. You feel this team might be able to have a more reasonable 50 percent chance at defeating these other playoff teams with extensive changes to the roster in the following offseasons (say 12-16 moves to the first team offense and defense combined).

You do an extensive analysis of different methods to acquire these other pieces and realize the likelihood of acquiring the necessary pieces is extremely small when combined with likely player A longevity (injury potential) along with the rest of the active roster while accumulating these assets.

You come to the conclusion that the team will likely fall short of the ultimate goal of winning the super bowl (98 to 99 percentage certainty) in the next 5-6 years, but have a 98 to 99 percent chance of winning the division and/or making the playoffs in 2 thirds of the same seasons.

Would it then be tanking/quitting to trade player A and any other player to acquire draft capital, when there is a 98 to 99 percent chance of not winning the division for the next 5 seasons if you do this?

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WHY?
 

Einstein

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
1,337
Problem is there is NO analytics that will tell you have that high of a chance to win the SB regardless of what you do. How often to teams win back to back SB's? Not often, and even if you have felt KC was 98 - 99% in line to do so up to this point this year, do you feel those numbers are the same if Mahomes is out next week?
 

Ranching

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,792
Reaction score
107,021
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Let's say that you trade player "A". You as GM feel confident that the team can likely win 6 of 10 final games with player A and will likely make the playoffs. You also feel certain that player A will unlikely (somewhere beyond 99 percent) be able to win against the other playoff teams. You feel this team might be able to have a more reasonable 50 percent chance at defeating these other playoff teams with extensive changes to the roster in the following offseasons (say 12-16 moves to the first team offense and defense combined).

You do an extensive analysis of different methods to acquire these other pieces and realize the likelihood of acquiring the necessary pieces is extremely small when combined with likely player A longevity (injury potential) along with the rest of the active roster while accumulating these assets.

You come to the conclusion that the team will likely fall short of the ultimate goal of winning the super bowl (98 to 99 percentage certainty) in the next 5-6 years, but have a 98 to 99 percent chance of winning the division and/or making the playoffs in 2 thirds of the same seasons.

Would it then be tanking/quitting to trade player A and any other player to acquire draft capital, when there is a 98 to 99 percent chance of not winning the division for the next 5 seasons if you do this?

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WHY?
Considering that the average career in the NFL is 3 or 4 years, I see this quitting. Tanking for picks is not a sure thing. If it was most teams would be doing it. How boring would it be to see many games where both franchises and their fans were hoping to lose.
 

Blitzen

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
1,960
Problem is there is NO analytics that will tell you have that high of a chance to win the SB regardless of what you do. How often to teams win back to back SB's? Not often, and even if you have felt KC was 98 - 99% in line to do so up to this point this year, do you feel those numbers are the same if Mahomes is out next week?

Everyone has analytics within the stock market. The NFL GM's job is to determine the likelihood of success at different goals and the likelihood of failure. After that they make whatever moved they can to bring the chance of success to as high a level as they can.

But sometimes the best move will be to move on from many of your players and potentially the entire core if it's determined that the Super Bowl is for the most part a pipe dream.

This is absolutely a scenario that each GM must face and decide what to do. Of course there are no foolproof analytics that get you that close, but after you play out likely scenarios you can get a strong inclination. The GM in this case feels those certainties. They might be incorrect but they feel that they are correct.
 

Blitzen

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
1,960
Considering that the average career in the NFL is 3 or 4 years, I see this quitting. Tanking for picks is not a sure thing. If it was most teams would be doing it. How boring would it be to see many games where both franchises and their fans were hoping to lose.

I believe that many professional teams out there in most if not all sports have this dilemma. The GM realizes that the chances for ultimate success are pretty low, but must compete either way (not just from a pride standpoint, but for revenue and profitability).

Like you said audiences would be bored to watch squads wishing they would lose. But it happens in professional sports in that some teams will keep building draft capital until they feel strongly that they can finally cash in their chips. The timing must be right and you have to have the right players and right coaches together.

My general question is that if you know that the likelihood for winning the ultimate prize is extremely small with the current core, is it quitting to move on from the current core with hopes of getting it correct with the draft and a new coaching staff?
 

gjkoeppen

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,703
Reaction score
3,327
Let's say that you trade player "A". You as GM feel confident that the team can likely win 6 of 10 final games with player A and will likely make the playoffs. You also feel certain that player A will unlikely (somewhere beyond 99 percent) be able to win against the other playoff teams. You feel this team might be able to have a more reasonable 50 percent chance at defeating these other playoff teams with extensive changes to the roster in the following offseasons (say 12-16 moves to the first team offense and defense combined).

You do an extensive analysis of different methods to acquire these other pieces and realize the likelihood of acquiring the necessary pieces is extremely small when combined with likely player A longevity (injury potential) along with the rest of the active roster while accumulating these assets.

You come to the conclusion that the team will likely fall short of the ultimate goal of winning the super bowl (98 to 99 percentage certainty) in the next 5-6 years, but have a 98 to 99 percent chance of winning the division and/or making the playoffs in 2 thirds of the same seasons.

Would it then be tanking/quitting to trade player A and any other player to acquire draft capital, when there is a 98 to 99 percent chance of not winning the division for the next 5 seasons if you do this?

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WHY?






First off your percentages are just yours and that you can do but that does not make them right or even close for that matter. It doesn't take that much thinking to realize you're player "A" is Prescott. To answer your question on trading any other player that would get any draft pick that would produce a starter is only weakening one position that will eventually need to be addressed to fix another position. The old say of less is more doesn't work in the NFL. When you weaken one position you are making that unit, offense or defense, have to be able to do the same things they did with that player but without that player. Teams don't work hard to get good depth in positions just to use as trade bait, but to make their team better. Now if any player on this team would bring in like 2 1st rounders plus a 2nd and a 3rd in the first year then that would be something to at least think about but there isn't any player that would bring that. Funny thing, not ha ha funny, that so many fans think the only way to get to the promised land is signing high priced free agents and/or trading Cowboys good players weakening positions for draft picks which at least one of those picks will be needed to replace the player they just traded and hope they are at least as good as the one they traded away.
.
.
 

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,106
Reaction score
33,854
What is this, the NBA?
Keeping player A and having a 98-99% chance of making the playoffs 66% of the time. Is the maker of these percentages the same manufactuer of the Sex Panther cologne?

5-6 years is too long of a time, Dallas excluded, for a team to suck and miss the playoffs(with a 99% certainty) and not have wholesale changes including the GM.

It would be a good way to get fired.
 

thunderpimp91

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,904
Reaction score
14,897
I have no problem with that move depending on the return, but if any NFL GM thinks they will need more than 5-6 years to rebuild then they need to be let go themselves.

If a gm wants to pull off a move like that they are either freeing up a ton of cap space, acquiring massive draft capital or some combination of both. A good gm at that point should be expected to turn that trade into progress within 2 years.

Any front office tanking that includes a down year to reload draft capital, let some young guys play, and put out the best roster available on the field the following year I’m good with. Any extended effort to not win games just completely destroys culture and organizations. You basically become the raiders of the bengals of the 90s, browns, or raiders of the 2010s type organization.
 

Ranching

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,792
Reaction score
107,021
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I believe that many professional teams out there in most if not all sports have this dilemma. The GM realizes that the chances for ultimate success are pretty low, but must compete either way (not just from a pride standpoint, but for revenue and profitability).

Like you said audiences would be bored to watch squads wishing they would lose. But it happens in professional sports in that some teams will keep building draft capital until they feel strongly that they can finally cash in their chips. The timing must be right and you have to have the right players and right coaches together.

My general question is that if you know that the likelihood for winning the ultimate prize is extremely small with the current core, is it quitting to move on from the current core with hopes of getting it correct with the draft and a new coaching staff?
My answer is that if you purposely do something to weaken the team, you are quitting. If you pull of a Walker type trade where you get picks and players that can help your current team improve and get some picks for the future as well, that is not quitting, because you are getting immediate help. The trick is to use your picks wisely and hope you get it right. Not all picks are sure things. Fine line.....
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,960
Reaction score
20,118
Its not quitting/tanking. But there is a lot more to this scenario than just what has been discussed. What draft pick compensation will you receive for the player? What are the cap implications for the trade? Is the player a solid foundation piece or a cancer?

What are your team needs? Which direction most benefits the overall direction your team wants to go? How long is the current player's contract and will you get a comp pick for that player's departure in free agency?

I am against mediocrity. I think you take an aggressive stance to "team building" and every player should be available for a price. I am also "for" vigorous competition at every position, including QB.
 

Point-of-the-Star

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
3,170
This thread has a very Dakish flavor to it.
My answer is that if you purposely do something to weaken the team, you are quitting. If you pull of a Walker type trade where you get picks and players that can help your current team improve and get some picks for the future as well, that is not quitting, because you are getting immediate help. The trick is to use your picks wisely and hope you get it right. Not all picks are sure things. Fine line.....

Purposely weaken your team . . . like Philthy and the Jets did?

And by "immediate help" does that only mean the current season or can it mean the next season also? And also wouldn't all this depend on how big of a windfall the trading team gets (either immediate or very near future)?


Asking for a friend/
 

Blitzen

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
1,960
First off your percentages are just yours and that you can do but that does not make them right or even close for that matter. It doesn't take that much thinking to realize you're player "A" is Prescott. To answer your question on trading any other player that would get any draft pick that would produce a starter is only weakening one position that will eventually need to be addressed to fix another position. The old say of less is more doesn't work in the NFL. When you weaken one position you are making that unit, offense or defense, have to be able to do the same things they did with that player but without that player. Teams don't work hard to get good depth in positions just to use as trade bait, but to make their team better. Now if any player on this team would bring in like 2 1st rounders plus a 2nd and a 3rd in the first year then that would be something to at least think about but there isn't any player that would bring that. Funny thing, not ha ha funny, that so many fans think the only way to get to the promised land is signing high priced free agents and/or trading Cowboys good players weakening positions for draft picks which at least one of those picks will be needed to replace the player they just traded and hope they are at least as good as the one they traded away.
.
.


The best teams can and will trade good to great players that do harm to the team's depth and playoff potential that season if they get fair compensation (even a first rounder is sometimes enough for these teams to part with a blue chip player, see Chandler Jones, Brandin Cooks, Laremy Tunsil, Minkah Fitzpatrick, etc, etc).

No, I'm not asking you if the trades always work (though they definitely do work sometimes). I never brought up Dak, that would be your issue. I'm trying to include any player, no matter how good to the scenario.
 

Ranching

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,792
Reaction score
107,021
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
This thread has a very Dakish flavor to it.


Purposely weaken your team . . . like Philthy and the Jets did?

And by "immediate help" does that only mean the current season or can it mean the next season also? And also wouldn't all this depend on how big of a windfall the trading team gets (either immediate or very near future)?


Asking for a friend/
Tell your friend to call me! Lol
 

Ranching

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,792
Reaction score
107,021
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The best teams can and will trade good to great players that do harm to the team's depth and playoff potential that season if they get fair compensation (even a first rounder is sometimes enough for these teams to part with a blue chip player, see Chandler Jones, Brandin Cooks, Laremy Tunsil, Minkah Fitzpatrick, etc, etc).

No, I'm not asking you if the trades always work (though they definitely do work sometimes). I never brought up Dak, that would be your issue. I'm trying to include any player, no matter how good to the scenario.
You asked for opinions. Doesn't seem like that's what you want, seems more like your mind is made up.
 

MonsterD

Quota outta absentia
Messages
7,870
Reaction score
5,444
I see people say you can't tank but then I see the Dolphins, Jets and for absolute certain the Jaguars strip their team of talent. If they can get some decent picks then that is fine, but they get high picks for QBs, and more left over to build out a team from there. It is a gamble but they are at least trying to burn the forest down for changing it to more fertile ground.

Now if the one player is a QB, and he is not good enough to carry an offense (not defense obviously), then not really is my answer to whether or not it is tanking. Several players that are key positions, of course it is.
 

Jake

Beyond tired of Jerry
Messages
36,067
Reaction score
84,350
Everyone has analytics within the stock market. The NFL GM's job is to determine the likelihood of success at different goals and the likelihood of failure. After that they make whatever moved they can to bring the chance of success to as high a level as they can.

That's most GMs. Jerry Jones is 78 years old, in no danger of being fired if he fails to produce results, and isn't really thinking long term.

Every year he thinks he's got a chance. We never reach the top but we don't bottom out, either. It is what it is.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
Let's say that you trade player "A". You as GM feel confident that the team can likely win 6 of 10 final games with player A and will likely make the playoffs. You also feel certain that player A will unlikely (somewhere beyond 99 percent) be able to win against the other playoff teams. You feel this team might be able to have a more reasonable 50 percent chance at defeating these other playoff teams with extensive changes to the roster in the following offseasons (say 12-16 moves to the first team offense and defense combined).

You do an extensive analysis of different methods to acquire these other pieces and realize the likelihood of acquiring the necessary pieces is extremely small when combined with likely player A longevity (injury potential) along with the rest of the active roster while accumulating these assets.

You come to the conclusion that the team will likely fall short of the ultimate goal of winning the super bowl (98 to 99 percentage certainty) in the next 5-6 years, but have a 98 to 99 percent chance of winning the division and/or making the playoffs in 2 thirds of the same seasons.

Would it then be tanking/quitting to trade player A and any other player to acquire draft capital, when there is a 98 to 99 percent chance of not winning the division for the next 5 seasons if you do this?

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WHY?

yeah that's tanking because you're not doing your best to win in the short term in order to get a worse record and thus better draft spots.

the 76ers did that for about four or five years while they were acquiring Ben Simmons and company. They were definitely tanking.

if you are mathematically eliminated for making the playoffs I don't think there's a problem with developing talent in the like much like coaches do during preseason.

the problem is is when you have a shot to make the playoffs and you just give up because it's hard. That really is a loser's mentality.

As for trades that's a different animal. You are trading away an asset for another asset. That is not the same as making healthy scratches so you can lose games. The idea is is that the asset you are acquiring is more valuable and thus more contributing towards wins.

At the end of the day though your scenario is not realistic. there's no way to come up with those percentages and that is basically making up numbers in order to fit an emotional feel that you've got for something.

It's real simple. If you have a chance to get better you take it at the same time if you have a chance to make the playoffs you do your best in order to get in so you have a chance to win the championship.


It being hard or unlikely doesn't mean that you don't try.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
And there's a difference between making a decision in the off-season that the roster is insufficient and that you need to rebuild and in doing so you trade away to assets in order to acquire draft picks and prospects as opposed to in the last month of the season you're still in the playoff race and you give up because it's not a sure thing.
 

Blitzen

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
1,960
My answer is that if you purposely do something to weaken the team, you are quitting. If you pull of a Walker type trade where you get picks and players that can help your current team improve and get some picks for the future as well, that is not quitting, because you are getting immediate help. The trick is to use your picks wisely and hope you get it right. Not all picks are sure things. Fine line.....

The 1989 Walker trade resulted in the Cowboys ending the season with the league's worst season, and all the picks that came with it. The trade could have done next to nothing for the Cowboys and resulted in the Vikings winning the Super Bowl. But it did not. Betting still requires nerve, luck, and long term goal setting and commitment. That trade still took some time to eventually work out well and did not yield immediate help.

Johnson had famously said that if they traded Walker it would mean the Cowboys would go winless (almost true).
 

Blitzen

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
1,960
yeah that's tanking because you're not doing your best to win in the short term in order to get a worse record and thus better draft spots.

the 76ers did that for about four or five years while they were acquiring Ben Simmons and company. They were definitely tanking.

if you are mathematically eliminated for making the playoffs I don't think there's a problem with developing talent in the like much like coaches do during preseason.

the problem is is when you have a shot to make the playoffs and you just give up because it's hard. That really is a loser's mentality.

As for trades that's a different animal. You are trading away an asset for another asset. That is not the same as making healthy scratches so you can lose games. The idea is is that the asset you are acquiring is more valuable and thus more contributing towards wins.

At the end of the day though your scenario is not realistic. there's no way to come up with those percentages and that is basically making up numbers in order to fit an emotional feel that you've got for something.

It's real simple. If you have a chance to get better you take it at the same time if you have a chance to make the playoffs you do your best in order to get in so you have a chance to win the championship.


It being hard or unlikely doesn't mean that you don't try.

I never mentioned that the squad not try as hard as they can with the best players still on the squad. And my scenario has 10 games remaining not 4.

Let's leave percentages off since so many on here cannot seem to get past them.

The GM feels certain that the squad has a great chance at getting to the playoffs with the current roster. However, the GM also feels just as certain that the team will ultimately fall short of the end goal.

The GM feels certain that this will be the situation going forward even with updating the team with the current assets and current upcoming projected assets.

After carefully analyzing options and weighing trade offers the GM starts moving players for good and a couple great draft pick compensation. With the current and upcoming assets the GM feels certain that the team can reach the same level of success with 3-4 years and potentially exceed the current outlook.

Is it tanking or quitting to pull those trades off and forego current success, with the hope of greater returns in the future?
 
Top