Tanking games for the draft

[Jay]

Too early to consider this tanking games but...

When a team that knows it will not win in baseball trades away stud players for future studs (perhaps), then how is this not a form of tanking?

I am not ashamed saying during '88 I was all for us losing to get Aikman. I started calling Galloway by the forth game of that season touting Aikman.

You may thank me now for the Super Bowls since I rooted the player onto our team.

There's a pretty big difference between trading away players for future talent and straight up purposely losing games to get a better draft spot. Trading away players doesn't mess with the integrity of the game, but losing purposely does.

Just my opinion.

 

[MC KAos]

i think the rams could take luck, bradford isnt exactly lighting the world on fire. cam newton, on the other hand, is a BEAST and if carolina ended up with that pick, they would get a hershel walker type trade for sure! i cant imagine how good that team could be if that happened!

 

[sonnyboy]

Too early to consider this tanking games but...

When a team that knows it will not win in baseball trades away stud players for future studs (perhaps), then how is this not a form of tanking?

I am not ashamed saying during '88 I was all for us losing to get Aikman. I started calling Galloway by the forth game of that season touting Aikman.

You may thank me now for the Super Bowls since I rooted the player onto our team.

Thanks

 

[sonnyboy]

This seems to be a hot topic right now with many teams needing a franchise quarterback and Andrew Luck being arguably one of the best QB prospect ever.

Right now, 3 teams are winless (Dolphins, Colts, Rams) and 4 others are 1-4. The thought is that if the season is already lost, a team would purposely lose a game or games to ensure a better draft position to take a better player to help the team in the future. In more simple terms, drafting a better player for the future is better than winning a game in a season that is already lost.

I remember last year this was a hot topic for the zone as the Cowboys were already eliminated from the playoffs and had it's last game against the Eagles who were playing backups. The Cowboys eventually won the game, moving their draft position from a possible 5th overall to 9th overall. That pick would have put the Cowboys in position to draft possibly the best CB prospect in the past decade, Patrick Peterson. Instead, he ended up going 5th overall to the Cardinals.

So what is your take: Is it better to purposely lose games if it ensures you a prospect that could help your franchise be successful in the future, or should a team try to win at all cost, even if it means losing positioning for a better draft prospect?

Last year's team needed to win games, period. It was a much better team than the 1-7 start indicated. Won't go into why since it's been cover to no end here.

But we were not starting over and in the running or need for a franchise QB. What the 2010 Cowboys needed to do was have success and build some momentum and confidence for 2011. Especially under their new HC.

Now if Luck were availible in the 2010 draft and Tony was 35 years old, I absolutely play every young player and cut players with no long term future with the team.

So the answer is.......it depends.

And BTW, after all that *****ing and moaning about finishing with 1-2 more wins last year, looks like Smith may be a better player than Peterson and certainly fills a greater immediate need.

 

[Hostile]

Last I heard, he was about to play in his 6th NFL game.

~slap~

:laugh2:

 

[mmillman]

I don't think you ever purposely lose games but if your season is over why not play younger guys for the experience and to evaluate? If the result of that is a better draft spot all the better.

College teams do this all the time. If you have a two equal players, play the younger because typically his upside is better.

 

[BourbonBalz]

If you're having a terrible season and it was down to the last week or two of the season, I wouldn't theoretically have a problem with my team losing the last game or two to get a franchise QB. I would, however, have a BIG problem with it if my team began thinking in this manner in Week 6. As a fan, that would piss me off big time. Would you want to devote the time and emotional energy to follow a team, much less pay the huge ticket prices, to see a team that was tanking the season for a draft pick? Hell no. But again, in Week 16 or 17, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. When all is lost and you're near the end, what difference would it make? That goes against my moral compass, but it would probably pay benefits in the future.

 

[Hoofbite]

A franchise QB is such a rarity. I am not at all shamed to admit that in 1988 when we were in the running for the Troy Aikman sweepstakes I was concerned that we were going to win our last game and blow it.

I would never tank games, but when a player like that, or Luck, is the prize, I have to admit, the losing isn't as painful.

I think it is different for the Rams though. They have their guy. The other 2 teams could benefit from it. I think the Colts would almost have to part ways with Manning and give the kid the reins if they ended up with him.

I think you could justify losing a game or two but losing 11 games in the name of getting high pick is treason.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I'd never advocate an all out tank but what I would do and wanted us to do last year (all fan outrage be damned) is to cut/bench every vet you know has no future on the team, go with youth and players with potential and let them learn, get valuable experience and develop so you know who to keep and who to replace for the next season, then let the wins and losses land where they fall.

Another very good point. It's smart to evaluate young players and to plan to get rid of older players that aren't productive any longer and/or that aren't simiply in the plans for the future. If it results in the # 1 draft pick, so be it.

 

[Doomsday101]

A franchise QB is such a rarity. I am not at all shamed to admit that in 1988 when we were in the running for the Troy Aikman sweepstakes I was concerned that we were going to win our last game and blow it.

I would never tank games, but when a player like that, or Luck, is the prize, I have to admit, the losing isn't as painful.

I think it is different for the Rams though. They have their guy. The other 2 teams could benefit from it. I think the Colts would almost have to part ways with Manning and give the kid the reins if they ended up with him.

I agree but I will say Landry did not tank the last game to do it. We were just a bad team

I don't believe it is every a good idea to tell your players it is alright to lose.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I agree but I will say Landry did not tank the last game to do it. We were just a bad team

I don't believe it is every a good idea to tell your players it is alright to lose.

I doubt any coach in the history of the NFL has ever told his players it's O.K. to lose any game before they play it. There are much more subtle ways to accomplish the same thing. Play young players that might not otherwise be on the field. It kills two birds with one stone. Experiment with new plays, formations, etc. Sit players with injuries that they could normally play with.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

I agree but I will say Landry did not tank the last game to do it. We were just a bad team

I don't believe it is every a good idea to tell your players it is alright to lose.

Agreed. Bad drafts and age had left the team in a shambles and losing was expected every week.

 

[Doomsday101]

I doubt any coach in the history of the NFL has ever told his players it's O.K. to lose any game before they play it. There are much more subtle ways to accomplish the same thing. Play young players that might not otherwise be on the field. It kills two birds with one stone. Experiment with new plays, formations, etc. Sit players with injuries that they could normally play with.

I think when your out of the race there is noting wrong with putting in guys you want to see for next season but you do that in hopes they can go out and play well and you get them ready to play the game to win it.

 

[JonJon]

I doubt any coach in the history of the NFL has ever told his players it's O.K. to lose any game before they play it. There are much more subtle ways to accomplish the same thing. Play young players that might not otherwise be on the field. It kills two birds with one stone. Experiment with new plays, formations, etc. Sit players with injuries that they could normally play with.

That is true, but do you think the players would agree amongst themselves to tank? The cowboys sure seemed to tank to get Wade fired last season and then all of a sudden start playing good once he was gone (not that I am complaining about the end result).

 

[Doomsday101]

That is true, but do you think the players would agree amongst themselves to tank? The cowboys sure seemed to tank to get Wade fired last season and then all of a sudden start playing good once he was gone (not that I am complaining about the end result).

I don't think they tanked to get him fired. I think they had high expectation and when things went wrong they lost their will. You start looking for what else can go bad additude. Once he was fired I think players felt they too were being put on notice that some of them would be next. Some where

 

[Risen Star]

The popular stance is you try to win every game. But that's for the players. I'm not a player. I'm a fan. If I'm a Dolphins fan, I'm hoping my team loses every game this season. You have to look big picture and getting Luck would be the very best scenario the 2011 season could give them.

 

[Doomsday101]

The popular stance is you try to win every game. But that's for the players. I'm not a player. I'm a fan. If I'm a Dolphins fan, I'm hoping my team loses every game this season. You have to look big picture and getting Luck would be the very best scenario the 2011 season could give them.

I can't say I could cheer aginst the Cowboys. If it got to that point I just would not watch that game.

 

[7footer]

If the Colts end up drafting Luck after having Manning all these years I'd be sick. The last sports team to get that lucky (pun intended) was the San Antonio Spurs when they went from having David Robinson to getting Tim Duncan.

Most NFL teams have long periods of mediocrity, or all-around sucktitude, before landing a new franchise QB after they lose their old one, but Indy is in the perfect position to completely revamp their team for the next decade or so with Luck after just one season without Manning.

 

[Doomsday101]

If the Colts end up drafting Luck after having Manning all these years I'd be sick. The last sports team to get that lucky (pun intended) was the San Antonio Spurs when they went from having David Robinson to getting Tim Duncan.

Most NFL teams have long periods of mediocrity, or all-around sucktitude, before landing a new franchise QB after they lose their old one, but Indy is in the perfect position to completely revamp their team for the next decade or so with Luck after just one season without Manning.

Well maybe the play of Painter will change their minds.

 

[JonJon]

I can't say I could cheer aginst the Cowboys. If it got to that point I just would not watch that game.

In this case, I think its a little different than rooting against the team. Technically speaking, yes, you would be rooting for them to lose, but lose in the hopes of "winning" the top pick to help the teams future. If the Dolphins lose all their games this season and draft Luck, I would consider that a win if I was a fan.