Would this be considered tanking?

[Sgt Schultz]

7 minutes ago, Toomers said:

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
 

   

I agree with your last sentence.  By that time Ross and his handlers had to remain invisible.

We have no idea what obstacles "the management" put in Flores way weeks 1-4.  They can do a lot of damage, as we have seen by some just out of incompetence (49ers in 2014, for example).  The Dolphins went beyond mere incompetence and into self-sabotage.

I don't think a young team getting better accounts for the magnitude of the first four losses, and then going to some one-score games.  Not that quickly.  That may be where we diverge.  The Dolphins looked worse than the 76 Bucs for those first four games.  The only thing we know for sure happened around that time was scrutiny and an evil eye from the league.

So it's clear to everyone, my contention is and always has been that they wanted the best QB available.  That morphed over the course of the year from Tua to Burrow, largely due to injuries.  Regardless of who they thought they wanted in August or even October (right before Tua's first injury), Burrow would have been their pick if he was on the board. That year, securing that would have required them securing the #1 pick (or at least ahead of Cincinnati, depending on the draft board and trade intentions of teams 2-4).  If you are going to try to lose, the #1 pick probably has to be your goal for safety, but isn't always necessary to get who you want and declare victory.  That year it was. 

Last year, if you "had to have" Pickett, even the bottom half was not necessary.  In fact, changing anything about your roster or offering your coach money to lose was probably not necessary unless you were already a playoff team.

Honestly, the Dolphins that year are the only time I feel confident was actually trying to lose, and I've been watching the NFL since 1969.  Even the 76 Bucs tried to win.

[Toomers]

22 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

I agree with your last sentence.  By that time Ross and his handlers had to remain invisible.

We have no idea what obstacles "the management" put in Flores way weeks 1-4.  They can do a lot of damage, as we have seen by some just out of incompetence (49ers in 2014, for example).  The Dolphins went beyond mere incompetence and into self-sabotage.

I don't think a young team getting better accounts for the magnitude of the first four losses, and then going to some one-score games.  Not that quickly.  That may be where we diverge.  The Dolphins looked worse than the 76 Bucs for those first four games.  The only thing we know for sure happened around that time was scrutiny and an evil eye from the league.

So it's clear to everyone, my contention is and always has been that they wanted the best QB available.  That morphed over the course of the year from Tua to Burrow, largely due to injuries.  Regardless of who they thought they wanted in August or even October (right before Tua's first injury), Burrow would have been their pick if he was on the board. That year, securing that would have required them securing the #1 pick (or at least ahead of Cincinnati, depending on the draft board and trade intentions of teams 2-4).  If you are going to try to lose, the #1 pick probably has to be your goal for safety, but isn't always necessary to get who you want and declare victory.  That year it was. 

Last year, if you "had to have" Pickett, even the bottom half was not necessary.  In fact, changing anything about your roster or offering your coach money to lose was probably not necessary unless you were already a playoff team.

Honestly, the Dolphins that year are the only time I feel confident was actually trying to lose, and I've been watching the NFL since 1969.  Even the 76 Bucs tried to win.

Why would we have no idea what obstacles? Every move is public. They traded Minkah after week one but that was as much to do with way he was being used. He was there for 59-10. Tunsil and Tannehill were before season. Kenyon Drake got traded at deadline. What other moves did they put in his way? 
 

 

  
 

   So a team that went winless tried to win MORE than a team that won 5 games while trying to lose them all. Just because you “feel” that way. And I saw that TB team as well. There was a reason John McKay wanted them “executed”. And how is a team that won 5 games your one and only example of this “trying to lose every week” theory. 
 

    

[YourLastThought]

[Day1PanthersFan]

They don't need Stroud, they have Matty Ice