Would this be considered tanking?

[rayzor]

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Can’t get hungover if you stay drunk…

[X-Clown]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I mean, naming an interim head coach that has no coaching experience beyond the HS level is about as blatant as tanking gets. 

And the sad part is that Josh McDaniels still lost to them in Saturdays first game

[Sgt Schultz]

50 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Miami’s tank did work. They had their shot at Tua and Herbert. We had a chance at neither. They’ve been to the above .500 both years and made the playoffs even with Tua missing a lot of time since their tank year.

Also, due to the tank they were able to clear cap space and gain draft picks (including 3 firsts from SF for Lance) to add Hill and Waddle.

They didn’t get Burrow, but it seems to me that their actual tank worked very well. It certainly worked way better than our spend it all and try to compete plan. Unfortunately for them, it looks like they got the wrong QB and they stupidly forfeited a 1st round pick.

We disagree at the very core of this.  Their effort secured the #5 overall pick.  While they still had a shot at Tua and Herbert, they did not have a shot at Burrow, who was very likely their target when they went down that path.

By your own admission, they picked the wrong QB.  That might be because picking #5, they had to select what they thought was behind door #2.  Had the tank worked, that third name would have been in the mix.  To me, that means it didn't work.  Just because they made it work out fairly decently after the fact, that does not mean their effort was successful. 

And I don't consider deciding it is time to clear cap space tanking.  That is what we essentially did in 2020.  What they did was try to lose, which goes beyond just purging the roster.  Tanking is both strategic and tactical.  If you are going to do that, you had better hit the bullseye. 

So, our very definition of whether it worked is different, thus there is no common ground to compare. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Sgt Schultz

[Krovvy]

The Saints & Colts both obviously tank. This league isn't as clean cut as you boys might imagine.

You have to remember that Saints players were literally paid to injure other NFL players.

[Toomers]

38 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

We disagree at the very core of this.  Their effort secured the #5 overall pick.  While they still had a shot at Tua and Herbert, they did not have a shot at Burrow, who was very likely their target when they went down that path.

By your own admission, they picked the wrong QB.  That might be because picking #5, they had to select what they thought was behind door #2.  Had the tank worked, that third name would have been in the mix.  To me, that means it didn't work.  Just because they made it work out fairly decently after the fact, that does not mean their effort was successful. 

And I don't consider deciding it is time to clear cap space tanking.  That is what we essentially did in 2020.  What they did was try to lose, which goes beyond just purging the roster.  Tanking is both strategic and tactical.  If you are going to do that, you had better hit the bullseye. 

So, our very definition of whether it worked is different, thus there is no common ground to compare. 

When they went down that path by trading Tunsil, Burrow was a late round flyer at best. His 2019 season hadn’t even started yet. And if they wanted to lose every game they wouldn’t have had Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB. 
 

And the Panthers wasted 80M+ in 2020 just to win a couple games. That is not clearing up cap space. It’s wasting it. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Toomers

[Sgt Schultz]

39 minutes ago, Toomers said:

When they went down that path by trading Tunsil, Burrow was a late round flyer at best. His 2019 season hadn’t even started yet. And if they wanted to lose every game they wouldn’t have had Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB. 
 

And the Panthers wasted 80M+ in 2020 just to win a couple games. That is not clearing up cap space. It’s wasting it. 

Regardless of who they thought they were going to tank for before the season started, had the tank been successful they had the option of re-evaluating.  It's not like they are required to declare who they planned to draft prior to a down being played.  Nor were they likely to adhere to their preseason draft chart after the season, regardless of what played out during the season.  

Who they were actually tanking for was the best QB they could get.  They, and a lot of people, assumed that would be Tua but he wound up getting beaten up enough to have two surgeries during and after that season.  As a result, he dropped and Burrow climbed.

In essence, if you are going by the literal idea they were tanking for Tua, they were successful.  Unfortunately, the Tua they got was not the same Tua they wanted prior to the season.  Being at #5, Tua was still available which sounds like a win, but only if they had him still ahead of Burrow on their draft chart after the season.  I don't think they did, and I doubt anybody held that order the way the season turned out.

I'm not going to pick on them for taking Tua over Herbert, as a lot of people had reservations about Herbert as a top 5 or 10 pick.  Those concerns turned out to be wrong (at least so far), but you act on the best information you have at the time.  Drafting right or wrong is a different discussion. 

Deciding to purge the roster of salary cap and rebuild is, again, not tanking in my mind.  Tanking is purposely trying to lose games each week, regardless of who is on the roster.

As for our purge, I would agree we never did it in a way to reach ground zero.  We thought we could get rid of the dead weight and at the same time try to win games and start a rebuild in the FA season.  We were attempting to purge dead cap or cap expenditures that were providing diminishing returns.  As it turned out, we did some of that, but at the same time we added some.  Not exactly textbook, but then again, what have we ever done that was?

[Move the Panthers to Raleigh]

Damn, we needed some guys like that on our team this year 

[Proudiddy]

Why tf was dude attempting to tackle anyway?

[Mr. Scot]

To answer the question, this would be considered the Colts.

[Sgt Schultz]

30 minutes ago, stbugs said:

How would Burrow be the target? There was not a single person who had Burrow as the top pick before the season. Tua was the top guy before the season. The Tunsil trade was August 2019. At that point Burrow had 18 TDs in 4 years.

Heck, Miami had pick 5, pick 18 and pick 26 in the 2020 draft. They also had multiple 1sts in 2021. Unlike us this year, Miami actually did have the ammo to trade up for Burrow but I think they had Tua as their target all along.

Also, you are missing the point of their tank. They traded players for what ended up being 5 first round picks and ended up with Waddle and Hill as part of that as well. They went from pick 5 in 2020 draft to back to back 9-8 seasons including a playoff berth with Tua missing a bunch of games. Yes, I think they took the wrong QB, but the tank including trading Tunsil and Fitzpatrick, did work. Could you imagine if they took Herbert and he had Hill and Waddle? Note that Hill and Waddle came from Houston’s pick so doing better with Herbert would have had zero impact.

Sure, the target before the season by name was Tua.  In reality, the target before the season is the best QB available, and at that point it was Tua.  Then they decided to tank.  Not just rebuild the roster and shed cap, but try to lose games on a weekly basis to get the best QB available. 

At least two funny things happen between that fateful day and the draft.  First, Tua gets beat up and goes under the knife twice.  By season's end he is no longer the top QB prospect.  That belongs to Burrow.  There were a lot of concern's about Tua's future, if my memory is correct.  Second, no matter how hard they try, the Dolphins can't lose more than the Bengals, Foreskins, Lions, or Giants who are not trying to lose, they just can't get out of their own way.

Purposely losing games was part of the tank.  In fact, in my mind it can't be considered a tank without that.  Teams tear down rosters all the time and don't try to lose games.  They accept they will and go out each week trying to win.  But trying to be a complete clusterf#*k and invent new ways to do it each week does not happen that often (although some teams seem to do it naturally).

Our point of difference is that you believe if they had tanked enough to secure the #1 pick, they would have still picked Tua.  I don't believe Miami picked Tua because they wrote his name down on a piece of paper in August, stuffed it in an envelope marked "do not open until draft day" and then obeyed.  They took him because the tank failed.......they did not lose enough to pick the best QB available.  I remember a lot of people scratching their heads when he was the second QB taken.

By draft day, Herbert was not considered a sure thing (worries about whether he could function outside of Oregon's offense) and Tua's health was considered a major risk.  That created a perceived gap between Burrow and door #2. 

I also don't think Cincinnati was going to trade that pick to them, even with the ammo they had.  They only would have done that if they had Herbert ranked roughly on par with Burrow, and I never heard any mention of the Bengals focusing on anybody but Burrow. 

My conclusion is that the decision to rebuild the roster has been a success.  But the other part of the tank, trying weekly to lose games, was not.  Had they managed to succeed at part 2, maybe the entire thing would be a home run for them because I believe they would have Burrow throwing to Hill and Waddle.

But, yeah, Herbert, Hill, and Waddle would be pretty deadly, too.

[1of10Charnatives]

12 hours ago, rayzor said:

if it was a decision made after 1pm it's pretty much the result of him being drunk. after 2pm it's the result of him doing coke. afternoons are not the time that he should be making any decisions.

why would you assume that a cokehead wouldn't do coke in the morning? Retaining boundaries of self control are not exactly their strong suit. let's just say that making decisions are not his strong suit and be done with it. fair enough?

[Toomers]

21 hours ago, Sgt Schultz said:

 

 

Deciding to purge the roster of salary cap and rebuild is, again, not tanking in my mind.  Tanking is purposely trying to lose games each week, regardless of who is on the roster.

 

Since your “idea” of tanking seems to change by the post, let’s just focus on this statement. Who was trying to lose for the Dolphins? What coaches/players lose games on purpose? It sure wasn’t Flores/Fitzpatrick on those teams. 
 

   The only “tanking” there is, is the purging the cap and not spending any future assets on a current year. And giving a HC Deshone Kizer(CLE 2017) or the Painter,Orlovsky, and ghost of Kerry Collins(Colts 2011 after Manning got hurt) is as tanking as a team can do. And even those Colts won 2 of their last 3 games. Front offices rebuild. Coaches/players try to win every game with the resources given. Tanking is a vague term that means whatever someone wants it to support a narrative. 
 

 Ask Doug Pederson what even the hint of trying to lose gets you. 
 

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Just now, Toomers said:

Since your “idea” of tanking seems to change by the post, let’s just focus on this statement. Who was trying to lose for the Dolphins? What coaches/players lose games on purpose? It sure wasn’t Flores/Fitzpatrick on those teams. 
 

   The only “tanking” there is, is the purging the cap and not spending any future assets on a current year. And giving a HC Deshone Kizer(CLE 2017) or the Painter,Orlovsky, and ghost of Kerry Collins(Colts 2011 after Manning got hurt) is as tanking as a team can do. And even those Colts won 2 of their last 3 games. Front offices rebuild. Coaches/players try to win every game with the resources given. Tanking is a vague term that means whatever someone wants it to support a narrative. 
 

 Ask Doug Pederson what even the hint of trying to lose gets you. 
 

 

My "idea" of tanking has not only not changed in this thread, it has not changed ever.  But nice try at the straw man.  I think  @stbugs, who I have bantered with before on this, will acknowledge that I have been consistent.  

I do agree with you, tanking has more definitions than people using the term.  Mine, however, has always been consistent which is why I mentioned earlier to stbugs that we did not have a common agreement on the term.

The Dolphins were trying to lose games when they opened the season, from the top of the organization.  It took them until week five to get within striking distance of anybody, and that is probably because the uproar was so bad they got a call from New York.  The scores of their first four games:  59-10, 43-0, 31-6, 30-10.  There were people calling for a league investigation by that point, and then suddenly things got more competitive. 

Ross admitted to prioritizing draft position over wins in the NFL investigation, that included an allegation from Flores that he was offered $10k per game to lose.  The Dolphins official response is something less than a hard denial: "however phrased, such a comment was not intended or taken to be a serious offer, nor was the subject pursued in any respect by Mr. Ross or anyone else at the club."

Notice they do not deny the offer was made.

Gutting the roster to hit ground zero is rebuilding.  Teams do that all the time.  The Dolphins took that to another level.  They not only decided to rebuild, they do not even deny offering to pay the coach to make sure they lose. 

Flores was almost certainly not involved, but do you really think the front office did not throw every obstacle in his path to hamper any chance he had to prepare the Dolphins to win?  And, if he was hampered from preparing the team, the players didn't directly need to be involved either. 

So they gut the roster (perfectly okay), stand accused of offering the coach money to lose, do not deny that allegation (but say instead it was "all in fun"), and produce enormous losses until the fur starts to fly, at which point they magically get competitive. 

You can connect those dots however you wish. 

[Toomers]

34 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

My "idea" of tanking has not only not changed in this thread, it has not changed ever.  But nice try at the straw man.  I think  @stbugs, who I have bantered with before on this, will acknowledge that I have been consistent.  

I do agree with you, tanking has more definitions than people using the term.  Mine, however, has always been consistent which is why I mentioned earlier to stbugs that we did not have a common agreement on the term.

The Dolphins were trying to lose games when they opened the season, from the top of the organization.  It took them until week five to get within striking distance of anybody, and that is probably because the uproar was so bad they got a call from New York.  The scores of their first four games:  59-10, 43-0, 31-6, 30-10.  There were people calling for a league investigation by that point, and then suddenly things got more competitive. 

Ross admitted to prioritizing draft position over wins in the NFL investigation, that included an allegation from Flores that he was offered $10k per game to lose.  The Dolphins official response is something less than a hard denial: "however phrased, such a comment was not intended or taken to be a serious offer, nor was the subject pursued in any respect by Mr. Ross or anyone else at the club."

Notice they do not deny the offer was made.

Gutting the roster to hit ground zero is rebuilding.  Teams do that all the time.  The Dolphins took that to another level.  They not only decided to rebuild, they do not even deny offering to pay the coach to make sure they lose. 

Flores was almost certainly not involved, but do you really think the front office did not throw every obstacle in his path to hamper any chance he had to prepare the Dolphins to win?  And, if he was hampered from preparing the team, the players didn't directly need to be involved either. 

So they gut the roster (perfectly okay), stand accused of offering the coach money to lose, do not deny that allegation (but say instead it was "all in fun"), and produce enormous losses until the fur starts to fly, at which point they magically get competitive. 

You can connect those dots however you wish. 

I’m talking about ITT. First they failed because they didn’t get 1st pick. Then it was they didn’t get Burrow. Then when informed they didn’t even know who Burrow was, it didn’t matter. Hard to keep up. 
 

   And I never said organizations don’t do it. I gave examples. But it stops at the roster and talent provided. If the HC is trying to win, and the players are as usual, who is trying to”tank” on a weekly basis? And there was no talk of investigating anyone. Did the league investigate the Browns in 2017 when they proudly did it and put a QB out there who would take care of it. 
 

   If Flores wasn’t involved, what happened between week 1 and 5. Did Flores try to lose the first 4 games. Or did a very young team get better? Trying to lose and still winning 5 with a depleted roster is impressive
 

   

Edited January 14, 2023 by Toomers